immigration

1. Legal concerns

The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), including its Joint Chambers (SS.UU. No. 4466/2009; No. 8924/2009), has consistently held that citizenship acquired through iure sanguinis is original and automatic from birth. The recognition process is declarative—not constitutive. Decree-Law No. 36/2025, however, denies citizenship retroactively to individuals born abroad with foreign nationality, including those descended from Italian citizens.

This retroactive effect undermines fully vested subjective rights in violation of the principle of non-retroactivity (Art. 11 of the Preliminary Provisions to the Civil Code), equality (Art. 3 of the Constitution), and legitimate expectation (Art. 97 of the Constitution). It results in a form of mass denationalization prohibited by Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality”).

The Constitutional Court (ruling No. 4/2024) requires strict scrutiny for any retroactive interference with fundamental rights. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has condemned such measures (Stran & Andreadis v. Greece, 1994; Genovese v. Malta, 2011), affirming that citizenship is protected under the right to private life (Article 8 ECHR) and must not be governed arbitrarily.

The absence of a transitional clause has harmed thousands of applicants who had already submitted documentation or awaited consular appointments under the previous legislation. The sudden exclusion of these individuals also violates the principles of legal continuity and family unity (Arts. 29 and 30 of the Constitution).

2. Compatibility with international law and European scrutiny

The decree poses clear risks of non-compliance with international law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Citizenship forms part of personal identity under Article 8 ECHR. In Genovese v. Malta (2011), the ECtHR ruled that arbitrary interference in the recognition of nationality violates private life rights.

The presumption of non-citizenship and the burden on applicants to prove a negative fact—namely the absence of loss or impediments to citizenship within their lineage—violates Article 6 ECHR and the right to fair trial. The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) reaffirmed in Hecta Viticol that legal frameworks must be predictable, accessible, and non-arbitrary—standards not met by this decree.

3. Elimination of administrative route and impact on judiciary

The new legal framework restricts access to citizenship almost exclusively to judicial proceedings, abolishing the administrative route. This will overburden Italian courts already strained due to consular inefficiencies and digital barriers such as the “Prenot@Mi” platform.

This approach is inefficient, costly, and discriminatory toward applicants who lack financial means to sustain a lawsuit in Italy. It results in the exclusion of thousands due to procedural and economic obstacles.

4. Economic and diplomatic repercussions

The decree damages Italy’s historical bond with its diaspora—especially in Latin America, home to millions of descendants of Italian emigrants. These communities represent a strategic asset for Italy in terms of:

• real estate and business investments;
• cultural and touristic promotion;
• human capital and internationalization.

An indiscriminate cutoff from citizenship harms Italy’s global image and may trigger diplomatic friction with key partner countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay.

5. Contradiction with Italy’s internationalization policies

While the Foreign Ministry and regional institutions promote internationalization, Italian language, and “roots tourism,” this decree goes in the opposite direction—severing the ties with potential citizens worldwide.

Other European nations are moving toward more inclusive models:

• Spain’s 2022 “Law of Democratic Memory” allows access up to the third generation;
• Romania recognizes citizenship up to the fourth generation;
• Poland and Hungary have simplified pathways for those with ethnic or cultural heritage.

Italy’s approach is increasingly bureaucratic and exclusionary, focused on procedural restrictions rather than identity and culture.

6. Recommendations for a fair reform

A reform consistent with the Constitution and international law should:

• remove retroactive effects and allow a 5-year grace period for those born before the law’s entry into force;
• safeguard applicants who had documented consular interactions or pending appointments;
• eliminate the requirement to prove the absence of impediments (negative facts);
• introduce objective and inclusive criteria, such as:
  • certified knowledge of the Italian language (minimum B1 level of CEFR);
  • legal and continuous residence in Italy for at least 2 years, including for work or study.

Finally, opening legal pathways to descendants can help address Italy’s demographic crisis. With one of Europe’s lowest birth rates, an aging population, and increasing youth emigration, Italy must invest in a forward-looking and inclusive citizenship policy. Welcoming those who are “Italian by descent and by culture” is a just and strategic choice.