The Supreme Court of Cassation, the highest court in Italy, held a hearing last Tuesday (14) in Rome on the interpretation of the 1912 law that defines who is considered an Italian citizen by birth. The decision, which could directly impact the current rules of citizenship by right of blood, should be released within two months.
Although the case analyzed does not directly address Tajani DecreeThe ruling, which limited the right to recognition of Italian citizenship, is seen as strategic by legal experts. The central issue involves the possibility of minors losing their Italian citizenship, which connects to the broader debate about rights acquired from birth.
According to the lawyer Luigi MinariThe process discussed was initiated before the new legislation. "The hearing did not directly address the application of the Tajani Decree, as the process predates the new law," he explained.
Nevertheless, he highlighted the relevance of the trial to the current scenario. "The central point was to determine whether the naturalization of the Italian father leads to the loss of citizenship for the minor child already born Italian," he stated in an interview with... Italianism.
For Minari, the connection to the decree lies in the legal principle involved. "The core issue is the same: defining whether citizenship, conferred by birth, can be lost," he said.
Impact on the Tajani Decree
The Court's interpretation may have indirect effects on the decree that restricted Italian citizenship.
According to Minari, a decision favorable to the descendants reinforces the argument that the right is original. "If the Court of Cassation decides that the minor does not lose citizenship, it reinforces that this is an original and uninterrupted right," he stated.
This understanding weakens the logic of the Tajani Decree, which attempts to limit the transmission of citizenship.
Legal dispute: retroactivity
At the heart of the debate is the possibility of retroactive application of the new rules.
Under Italian law, laws should not be retroactive, except in specific cases. The defense argues that the decree introduced new requirements and cannot affect rights already established.
Another argument involves what is called legitimate expectation. Lawsuits initiated based on previous legislation could not be altered by subsequent changes.
Role of the Court of Cassation
Lawyers consulted by Italianismo point out that the Court of Cassation plays a decisive role in defining the interpretation of the law.
While the Constitutional Court analyzes the validity of the rules, the Cassation Chamber defines how they should be applied in specific cases.
“More than an isolated decision, the ruling will be a clear indicator for the Constitutional Court,” Minari stated.
According to him, there is a dialogue between the higher courts. "The Constitutional Court does not decide in a vacuum. It also bases itself on the jurisprudence of the Cassation Court," he said.
Signaling to the Constitutional Court
The Cassation decision could directly influence future rulings on the subject. "If the Cassation confirms that citizenship is inherent to the individual and cannot be lost, that will be an important signal," the lawyer stated.
He emphasized that the Constitutional Court usually waits for the issue to mature in the lower courts before making a decision. "The matter needs to mature within the Judiciary before reaching the Constitutional Court," he explained.
The theme It will be discussed again on June 9th.when the Constitutional Court will analyze actions regarding the validity of the decree.
FOLLOW ITALIANISM
ERREIRA
April 17 from 2026 at 17: 26
I don't know if I forgot to mention it, but the Court of Cazzasione was notified that the decree of shame, which modifies the legislation on juris sanguis, committed a constitutional infraction by using a decree-law without urgency to modify a fundamental rights law.