Limits to citizenship by descent (iure sanguinis)? Awaiting the Constitutional Court’s ruling

Italian citizenship by descent: What changed in 2025?

Until March 2025, anyone descending from an Italian citizen could obtain Italian citizenship iure sanguinis (that is, by right of blood), without any generational limit. It was a long-standing rule, applied for years, which allowed many foreign nationals, often residing abroad, to obtain recognition of their Italian citizenship.

Everything changed with Decree-Law no. 36/2025, later converted into Law no. 74/2025: the new legislation introduced a generational limit, excluding from recognition many people who, under the previous rules, would have had a right to it.

This reform reignited both political and legal debate, drawing attention also to the previous legislation with no generational limit. In particular, some ordinary judges, called to rule on pending cases governed by the rules in force before March 2025, began to wonder whether the absence of a limit was truly compatible with constitutional principles.

From these doubts emerged the first orders of referral to the Constitutional Court:

• Ordinary Court of Bologna, Specialised Section on Immigration, International Protection and Free Movement of EU Citizens, 26 November 2024 – Reg. ord. no. 247/2024, Official Gazette, Special Series no. 4/2025;
• Ordinary Court of Milan, Twelfth Specialised Section, 3 March 2025 – Reg. ord. no. 66/2025, Official Gazette, Special Series no. 16/2025;
• Ordinary Court of Florence, Specialised Section, 7 March 2025 – Reg. ord. no. 86/2025, Official Gazette, Special Series no. 18/2025;
• Ordinary Court of Rome, Section on Personal Rights and Immigration, 21 March 2025 – Reg. ord. no. 65/2025, Official Gazette, Special Series no. 16/2025.

The Constitutional Court examined these cases in judgment no. 142 of 31 July 2025, focusing on the previous legal framework, i.e., without generational limits. In one passage of the reasoning (para. 7), referring to the appeals before it, the Court indirectly affirmed that the new 2025 legislation does not apply to cases pending before 27 March of that year. This important clarification confirmed what the Court of Campobasso had already ruled in May 2025, rejecting the Ministry’s argument that the reform should have retroactive effect on pending applications. The Court thus rejected an interpretation entirely without basis, contrary both to the wording and the spirit of the new law.

Beyond this, the Court focused its assessments on the previous framework and reaffirmed three key points:

• Citizenship iure sanguinis has an original and imprescriptible nature;
• The legislator enjoys margins of discretion, but must respect the principles of reasonableness and proportionality;
• Any amendments must remain consistent with the Constitution.

The only constitutional question that passed the admissibility filter was ultimately declared unfounded. As a result, the Court held that the previous legal framework is consistent with the Constitution.

What the Court decided on the previous legal framwork: Judgment No. 142/2025

With judgment no. 142 of 31 July 2025, the Constitutional Court ruled on the previous legislation concerning citizenship iure sanguinis, that is, without generational limits. The Court declared most of the questions raised by the referring courts inadmissible.

According to the referring judges, the absence of generational limits was unreasonable and disproportionate. The orders argued that recognizing citizenship without limit would distort the concept of the “sovereign people” as provided in Article 1 of the Constitution, by including millions of people with no real connection to the national community.

However, the Court found these criticisms too generic and stated that accepting them would require a structural legislative intervention — a “systemic manipulative intervention” — such as setting a maximum number of generations or introducing new criteria for connection to Italy. But such an operation, the Court clarified, is not within its competence, but belongs to Parliament.

The only question that passed the admissibility filter was the one based on Article 3 of the Constitution, regarding the principle of equality, raised by the Courts of Rome and Milan.

The Rome Court compared the iure sanguinis rule with that for children of former Italian citizens, referring to Art. 4 of Law No. 91/1992, which allows citizenship reacquisition only to the children or grandchildren of those who lost it. The Milan Court, instead, compared the situation to that of citizenship by marriage.

The Court reaffirmed its established interpretation of Article 3: a disparity of treatment is only relevant when it concerns substantially identical situations treated unjustifiably differently. But if the situations are not homogeneous, neither by nature nor purpose, then no violation of equality can be found.

And so it ruled:

• In the case of the Rome Court, there is no homogeneity because Art. 4, paragraph 1 of Law No. 91/1992 applies to children of former Italian citizens, whereas iure sanguinis refers to descendants of those who never lost citizenship;
• In the case of the Milan Court, the Court noted that marital and filial ties differ legally and functionally, and thus are not comparable.

Although the reform introduced by Decree-Law no. 36/2025 (later Act no. 74/2025) was not directly under review, the Court nonetheless enunciated fundamental principles, which may prove decisive when — between late 2025 and early 2026 — the constitutionality of the new legal framework is assessed.

In particular, the Court reaffirmed:

Citizenship iure sanguinis is original and imprescriptible, enforceable at any time upon proof of descent, in continuity with Constitutional and Supreme Court case law:

“In keeping with the essential features of the constitutive basis of citizenship, namely the status of being a child, both constitutional and supreme court case law have classified the nature of this mode of acquisition of citizenship as ‘original’ (see the cited judgment no. 30 of 1983, as well as Cassation judgments nos. 25317 and 25318 of 2022).
At the same time, the prevailing case law has emphasised that the status civitatis founded on the filial bond is of a ‘permanent and imprescriptible character [and] enforceable at any time on the basis of the mere proof of the constitutive event, consisting in birth from an Italian citizen.’”
(judgment no. 142 of 31 July 2025, para. 6.2)

The legislator has broad discretion but must observe reasonableness and proportionality (judgment no. 142/2025, para. 11.1);

The Court must ensure that legislative criteria are not alien to the Constitution and do not distort the essential nature of citizenship (judgment no. 142/2025, para. 11.1);

Italian citizenship implies belonging to a community with common cultural and linguistic roots, yet must remain open to pluralism and minority protection (judgment no. 142/2025, para. 11.2);

EU law recognises the Member States’ exclusive competence over citizenship, but this must be exercised in compliance with common values and with regard to EU citizenship, entailing rights such as free movement and equal treatment (judgment no. 142/2025, para. 11.3).