Many of our clients—and others in contact with the firm—are now wondering: What happens to my citizenship case? Does it still make sense to continue?
This concern is especially valid after reading the final version of DL36, converted into Law no. 74 of May 23, 2025, which appears to render many applicants no longer eligible.
As attorneys, our perspective is often different—by reading between the lines within a broader legal context.
The final text of Law 74/2025 is convoluted, and navigating it can feel like walking through a minefield. That’s why many are now working—sometimes with the help of AI—to create simplified charts and tools to help people assess their eligibility.
At this moment, our firm is not contributing to such tools, and we respectfully ask clients not to direct these questions to us. Please refer instead to official Italian government sources, legal websites (including ours), and informative social media channels.
Right now, our focus is exclusively on supporting our clients in their legal battles. The new law—and even more so its recent amendments—have made court cases significantly more complex, often involving constitutional issues. Each case now demands substantial legal analysis and tailored strategic planning.
We are working to these key legal dates:
Our perspective is that current and soon-to-be-filed cases fall into three general categories:
A) Cases Filed Before March 28, 2025 (Past legal citizenship framework applies)
You proceed as before.
B) Cases Filed Between March 28 and May 23, 2025 (Original version of DL36 applies)
Judges could follow various possible courses of action:
- Decide for second-generation applicants and defer other applicants to the Constitutional Court, based on retroactive deprivation of citizenship, discrimination (born in Italy/born abroad) and unreasonable “genuine link” to Italy.
- Suspend the case awaiting the Constitutional Court’s decision on a similar case.
- Reject third/fourth-generation claims, forcing an immediate appeal. Our legal strategy is to advocate for suspension or deferral, not rejection.
| As a reminder, the reason for the Constitutional Court hearing of June 24 is the referral made by the Bologna judge regarding the compatibility of Article 1 of Law no. 91/1992 with the Italian Constitution (see our post of December 6, 2024). However, as discussed during the conference held in Pavia on May 23 (see Reporting Back from the University of Pavia), the Constitutional Court may also decide to self-vest jurisdiction over the broader question of the compatibility of DL36–L74/2025 with the Italian Constitution. This means that before the summer holiday, if the Court makes a quick decision (although it may take longer—up to a couple of months from the hearing), clients in Group B could benefit from that ruling when their own hearing takes place before the civil court where they filed their citizenship case. In such instances, the presiding judge will be required to comply with the Constitutional Court’s decision. However, considering that the matter deferred by the judge of Bologna is broad and may not conclude with a narrow or surgical decision—but rather with a ruling of general principles (see our post on the Pavia conference mentioned above)—the Constitutional Court may choose not to self-vest jurisdiction over the second issue concerning DL36–L74/2025. Instead, it may wait for a specific referral by a civil court judge. Most likely, this referral will arise from one of the many cases already filed. According to media sources, over 3,000 cases were submitted between March 28 and May 23, 2025. When a civil judge refers a case to the Constitutional Court specifically asking for a review of the compatibility of DL36–L74/2025 with the Italian Constitution, the Court will then be officially vested to make a decision on that question. In that context, the Court will be in a better position to issue a targeted ruling—potentially striking down specific words or provisions of the law, or offering a constitutionally compliant interpretation of the text (see our post on the Constitutional Court of May 13). In such a case, clients will need to await a new hearing. Given the timeline observed for the Bologna case, it is reasonable to expect that a new hearing could take place in Spring 2026, with a decision following one to three months later. This future decision would be tailored to address the concrete issues raised by the “pioneer” cases filed between March 28 and May 23. |
C) Cases Filed After May 23, 2025 (DL36/L74 2025 final version applies)
Judges could follow various possible courses of action:
- Decide for second-generation applicants eligible under the new provisions (ancestor exclusively Italian), and defer to the Constitutional Court the others, based on retroactive deprivation of citizenship, discrimination (born in Italy/born abroad), unreasonable “genuine link” to Italy and contradictory ruling (an emigrant to acquire second citizenship).
- Suspend the case for second generation not qualifying under DL36/L74 2025 and third+ generation awaiting the Constitutional Court’s decision for a similar case.
- Reject second generation not qualifying under DL36/L74 2025 and third+ generation, forcing an immediate appeal. Our legal strategy is to advocate for suspension or deferral, not rejection.
| If the Constitutional Court decides to self-vest for the hearing of June 24—not only on the matter of the compatibility of Article 1 of Law no. 91/1992, but also on the broader issue of the compatibility of DL36–L74/2025 with the Italian Constitution, as we have explained above for Group B —then clients who have filed before the Court’s decision (expected by mid-July) will benefit from that ruling. On the contrary, if the Constitutional Court does not self-vest on the DL36–L74 matter, then clients in group C must wait for a new referral to reach the Court, with a likely decision timeframe around summer 2026. One of their cases may in fact be the one to trigger this, particularly if it is among those where the civil judge has scheduled an early hearing within 2025 with the intent to refer the case to the Constitutional Court. Most likely, it will be a case filed by early petitioners, though any judge has the authority to make such a referral—and, as a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened with the Bologna case. (Other referrals have also come from judges in Florence, Milan, and Rome.) If your case is not among those referred to the Constitutional Court, it will most likely be suspended—that is, adjourned to a later hearing set months ahead. Even so, it will still stand to benefit from the eventual Constitutional Court decision, once it is issued. |
For all cases that are no longer eligible under both the original version of DL36 and the version converted into law (DL36/L74 2025), it is necessary to obtain a favorable ruling from the Constitutional Court, which declares the new legislation unconstitutional, in part or in whole, so that the decision applies to all cases in court.
We firmly believe that the Constitutional Court will intervene on the new legislation to judge it unconstitutional, as it is widely considered that the new law presents numerous constitutional issues (see Hearings Underway In The Senate and the University of Pavia Conference, May 23).
For cases registered before May 23, 2025, we are representing numerous pioneers before the judges to affirm their right to citizenship, which they were deprived of overnight on March 28, 2025. However, this will not cover the other regulations subsequently inserted in the decree before the conversion. It is therefore necessary for other cases to reach the Constitutional Court, raising further questions such as the exclusively-Italian citizenship of the emigrant, and further additional conditions not in the initial version of the decree.
We are here to protect your rights, but we need you to come forward with the concrete issue to submit first to the judge and to convince them to send it to the Constitutional Court.
We will hold webinars for specific MLI client groups, by invitation, according to the phase their case is at.
Image courtesy of La Corte Costituzionale.