On March 11th, 2026, the Constitutional Court held a three-hour hearing for arguments for and against the constitutionality of the Tajani Decree, which put a generational cap on citizenship by descent. In this article, you will find a brief summary of what was said during this important hearing, and in the subsequent press release issued by the Constitutional Court on March 12th 2026.
A recap on the Constitutional Court
As per a previous update we released, Italy’s Constitutional Court was set to review the Tajani Decree (Decree-Law 36/2025). The purpose of the Italian Constitutional Court, active since 1955, is to examine the constitutionality of laws and determine whether or not such laws go against the Italian constitution. The court consists of 15 judges that also examine parliamentary decisions, ensuring a fair and balanced legal system.
In September of 2025, the Court of Turin (Torino) officially called on the Constitutional Court to review the Tajani Decree in light of certain specific constitutional principles. As we reported, one of the first steps was a public hearing for arguments for and against Law 74/2025. That hearing has now taken place.
What the court needs to review
The Constitutional Court was expected to examine aspects of the Tajani Decree to determine whether or not it violates the constitution. These included:
- The retroactive application of the law
- The equality of the law
- The inherent rights of Italian descendants
- The necessity of the decree-law action
These were the primary points of the hearing and will be addressed further below.
The arguments made against the Tajani Decree
The 3 hour hearing occurred on March 11, 2026. One of the main points from the plaintiffs challenging the new law was that citizenship by blood/descent (Jure Sanguinis) is a status that objectively exists and cannot be changed by the passing of a new law. When someone is recognized as an Italian citizen via Jure Sanguinis, the state merely confirms the individual’s pre-existing status.
The retroactive application of the law has also been questioned. Many argue that it is unconstitutional to apply this restrictive law to those who were born prior to the enactment of the so-called Tajani Decree and who were, by all rights, citizens under a different legal framework.
The potential violation of equality was another concern (Article 3 of Italy’s Constitution). Specifically, the Tajani Decree treats people with the same Italian ancestor differently, depending on circumstances, such as when they apply or where they were born. Those who were born or reside outside of Italy have a much more difficult time gaining recognition of their status as Italian citizens, in comparison to those born in Italy, even though the two categories of people have the same degree of connection to their Italian ancestry.
Finally, it was also argued that the decree-law action was used improperly in this case. A decree-law should only be used in cases that require urgency, necessity, and fall under extraordinary circumstances, none of which apply to the Tajani Decree. This last point had been particularly important, because if the Constitutional Court had agreed, then the entire decree-law would have been considered null and void.
The Press Release and What Happens Next
Following the hearing, the Constitutional Court released a statement noting that the arguments presented were deemed inadmissible. Because only a press release was issued, it remains unclear at this time whether the arguments were broadly rejected or if there is potential for the same arguments to be reconsidered in future proceedings, thus leaving the legal community awaiting the final judgement.
Further constitutional reviews of the Tajani Decree are already underway, following requests made by the courts of Mantova and Campobasso. These reviews will involve other aspects of the decree and therefore may lead to alternative outcomes. Normally, there can be several stages of procedures before any substantive changes to a new law are made by the Constitutional Court as the Court can only rule on the specific arguments that are presented before it.
Additionally, the issue of the retroactivity of the Tajani Decree will be addressed by the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) on April 11, 2026. The Supreme Court will be called to decide whether the decree can be applied retroactively, particularly for those born before its enactment. This review could have significant implications on the legal status of individuals affected by the decree, potentially reshaping the current legal landscape.
Can I still submit my case? (The Separate Issue of the Lack of appointments)
In spite of the Constitutional Court hearing held on March 11th 2026, regarding the Tajani Decree, we at Italian Citizenship Assistance encourage individuals who were unable to obtain an appointment with an Italian consulate, to present their case. One of the central arguments being raised before the Italian Civil Courts is that many applicants effectively were prevented from applying under the previous rules due to the chronic unavailability of appointments at Italian consulates worldwide. In situations where an applicant made genuine efforts to book an appointment but was unable to secure an appointment because none were available, there is a strong argument that the prior legal framework should still apply, as the inability to access the consular system was beyond the applicant’s control. Evidence of the attempts to schedule consular appointments—such as screenshots, emails, booking confirmations, or records of repeated login attempts—may play an important role in supporting the argument that access to the process was effectively denied. We have already started to see successes with claims in court as a result of this reasoning.
Conclusion
Italian Citizenship assistance is here to keep you informed of all the latest news regarding the Constitutional Court’s decision and other matters of Italian immigration law. Follow our blog and podcasts on YouTube, and if you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact our team by email via [email protected].
