Analysis | Italianism
Behind the scenes of the dispute over Italian citizenship by blood (ius sanguinis), three sentiments coexist: skepticism, concern, and the suspicion that... the decision would already be writtenThe climate is understandable, but it mixes facts with expectations. Separating one from the other is what allows us to truly see the extent of what is at stake.
The hearing this Tuesday (9) at the Constitutional Court This is increasing anxiety within the Italian community abroad. It is therefore worthwhile to step back and look at the bigger picture: what the Italian courts have already decided, what they have left open, and what recent history teaches us about the role of each court.
Which is already a fact
The Constitutional Court ruling 63/2026 confirmed article 3-bis of Law 91/1992 and recognized broad discretion for the legislatorThat point is settled. What many forget is that the same decision left some questions unanswered, especially the situation of those who started the recognition process but couldn't schedule an appointment by the deadline, and the distinction between those who took action and those who remained inactive.
In parallel, the Court of Cassation reaffirmed, in ruling 13818/2026, that citizenship by descent is a “diritto soggettivo assoluto di primaria rilevanza costituzionale, esistente dal momento della nascita del titolare, che ha natura permanente ed imprescripttibile”. In other words, an absolute subjective right of primary constitutional relevance, existing from birth, permanent and imprescriptible. This too is a fact, not an expectation.
The lesson of 1948
Recent history offers a key to understanding this. In rulings 87/1975 and 30/1983, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the old Law 555/1912, which revoked the citizenship of women married to foreigners, but set a limit: the effects would only apply from January 1, 1948.
It was the Cassation that broadened the protection. In 2009, in the United Sections (sentence 4466)The court also recognized the right of descendants of women whose children were born before 1948, based on the permanent and imprescriptible nature of the status. This understanding was consolidated in 2022, in ruling 25318. The lesson is clear: when the constitutional decision draws a line, the Court of Cassation has historically interpreted the rule in favor of the citizen.
Analogy has its limits, and it's honest to acknowledge them. In 1948, the Constitutional Court overturned the old rule. Now, it has validated the new one. The parallel serves to understand the dynamics between the courts, not to guarantee a result.
Two courts, two eras
The underlying confusion arises from treating the two courts as if they were deciding the same thing. The Constitutional Court judges whether the law fits within the Constitution. The Court of Cassation defines the concrete scope of the rule, including who remains under the previous regime. Therefore, a confirmation of the decree and an interpretation favorable to the active applicants can coexist.
The issues raised this Tuesday come from courts in Mantua and Campobasso and deal with points different from those already judged: retroactivity, citizenship as an original status, discrimination between descendants, and loss of European citizenship. They are not a repetition of the April ruling.
How far does the decision go?
This is where discipline against speculation comes in. Tuesday's session may reject these specific objections, in which case the rule remains in place on those points, or it may accept some of them, opening up space to protect a category of applicants. What it does not do is close the entire issue or tie down the interpretation of the Cassation.
Predicting the outcome would be guesswork. What the reader needs to do is observe two signs: what type of case the Court is dealing with and on what grounds. These elements, and not the behind-the-scenes atmosphere, indicate the true scope of the decision.
What to watch out for ahead
Tuesday's decision will be released after the hearing. The filing of the decision by the United Cassation Chambers is still pending. whose hearing took place on April 14 It also addressed the retroactive application of the decree. In everyday practice, the discussion tends to shift from "is it constitutional?" to a question of proof: demonstrating that the applicant had already taken action before the deadline. This issue remains alive, however. the possibility of referral to the Court of the European Union, due to the automatic loss of European citizenship.
An honest interpretation is that the path has narrowed, but not closed, and the crucial questions remain open. Skepticism and concern are understandable. However, the facts do not warrant either despair or false hope.
FOLLOW ITALIANISM
Danni
June 8 from 2026 at 10: 30
We vote, you serve in Italy anche Brasile. Non dimenticare cosa sono il Maie, LEGA L, fratelli e Forza. It's not a different sinister thing, but we always come together in Italy.