Experts warn that the new restrictions on citizenship by descent may not survive constitutional review.
Umberto L.C.G. Scotti, Consigliere (Judge) of the Italian Court of Cassation, First Civil Section, and former Presiding Judge of panels within the same Section, offers a sharp analysis of Constitutional Court Judgment No. 142/2025, which interprets the transmission of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis.
The new Article 3-bis (Law 74/2025) introduces retroactive restrictions denying citizenship even to those born before the law took effect and already regarded as citizens under old rules.
A likely outcome: the Constitutional Court may declare only the retroactive portion unconstitutional, preserving citizens’ existing rights while allowing the reform to stand for those born after the change.This is another important confirmation that the general opinion of law experts is that the new amendments to the citizenship law are remarkably unconstitutional.
Beyond Social Media: Authoritative Readings Begin to Emerge
Judgment No. 142 of 24 June 2025 (published on 31 July) has been widely discussed on social media, often by non-specialists. Until now, the only authoritative legal commentary came from Prof. Nicola Brutti, Associate Professor of Comparative Private Law at the University of Padua.
In his article “Corte sembra segnalare incostituzionalità legge 2025”, published by Adnkronos shortly after the judgment, Brutti highlighted two passages suggesting the Court’s concerns about the new law’s constitutionality:
- The Court stressed constitutional markers such as cultural, linguistic, and territorial commonality, while at the same time recognizing an open and pluralistic community. By retroactively revoking citizenship from descendants whose ancestors held dual nationality, the 2025 reform risks discriminating against dual citizens and clashing with this pluralistic vision.
The Court’s reliance on EU law and precedents of the Court of Justice underscores that national rules leading to loss of citizenship (and thereby EU citizenship) are highly problematic if they lack individual examination of consequences. The 2025 reform, with its blanket mechanism of collective loss, may therefore be incompatible with EU principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
Scotti’s Expanded Analysis
To these initial insights, Judge Scotti now adds a comprehensive and authoritative reading. Particularly significant is his observation that the Constitutional Court chose to elaborate extensively on legislative discretion in citizenship: an area where it could have remained brief. Scotti interprets this as a deliberate reminder that while Parliament enjoys wide discretion, its rules on citizenship remain subject to constitutional review: they must avoid discriminatory, manifestly unreasonable, or disproportionate criteria.
Scotti also emphasizes that the Court reinforced its stance by citing European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law, which has previously condemned national rules stripping citizenship without individualized review, and insisted that Member States’ powers are not unlimited and cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the nature of EU citizenship itself. This extended reasoning, Scotti suggests, reads like guidance “for the future”: a signal anticipating the upcoming case from the Turin Tribunal, where Article 3-bis is under direct review.
Further, Scotti notes that because the Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of the pre-2025 regime, the spring 2025 legislative intervention cannot be justified as correcting a constitutional flaw. On the contrary, long-standing case law affirms that citizenship acquired by descent is permanent, imprescriptible, and enforceable at any time, once proven through birth from an Italian parent, unless the State can demonstrate specific interrupting facts.
Scotti also highlights the broader human rights dimension: unlike the previous four referring judges, the Turin judge has raised issues not only under EU law, but also under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Toward a Likely Partial Unconstitutionality
From the June decision, Scotti draws several guiding principles:
- Italian lawmakers are bound by both the Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice; they must legislate with proportionality and reasonableness.
- There was no constitutional “bug” in the prior law; citizenship without generational limits was not unconstitutional.
- The retroactive cancellation embedded in Article 3-bis effectively amounts to a “revoca mascherata” (a disguised revocation). This same concern was already raised in April 2025 by Prof. Claudio Panzera of the University Mediterranea of Reggio Calabria during Senate hearings, and is a point we reported on in our coverage of the University of Pavia citizenship conference.
Scotti argues that the Constitutional Court may well declare Article 3-bis partially unconstitutional, precisely because it fails to provide a reasonable deadline for those already born to come forward. Instead of revoking citizenship en masse, the Court could adopt an additive solution: recognizing a time-limited window (perhaps one year) within which descendants can apply.
Such a ruling would close the door on indefinite future claims while preserving the rights of those who manifest their interest within the Court-set deadline, and would be a balanced solution between State interests and individual rights.
Conclusion
In light of these authoritative opinions—first from Prof. Brutti and now from Judge Scotti—the expectation is increasingly clear: the new amendments introduced by Law 74/2025 stand on shaky constitutional ground. Both the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice are likely to scrutinize the reform under the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and non-discrimination.
The outcome many experts foresee is a partial declaration of unconstitutionality, eliminating the retroactive revocation while preserving the law for future generations.
This confirms, once again, the growing consensus among legal scholars: the 2025 amendments to Italian citizenship law are remarkably unconstitutional.
For those who wish to read Judge Scotti’s full original commentary (in Italian), it is available on Giustizia Insieme: La Corte Costituzionale si pronuncia sulla cittadinanza – Osservazioni a prima lettura della Sentenza 142/2025.