On May 12, 2026, the Supreme Court in Italy (Corte di Cassazione) issued a positive ruling (n.13818/2026) on a particular case involving applicants who had unsuccessfully attempted to secure citizenship by descent appointments at their local Italian consulates and appealed to one of the lower Italian courts. Below, we break down what their ruling means in light of the recent statement from the Constitutional Court on the Tajani Decree, and how this potentially opens a pathway for those who tried to secure appointments before the decree went into effect.
The recent statement from the Constitutional Court
As a review, the Constitutional Court held a hearing on March 11, 2026, in which -for the time being- they upheld the Tajani Decree in light of specific points brought forth against it, such as the retroactive application, the equality of the law, and the necessity of the decree-law action. At the same time, in the court’s official statement released on April 30th, Sentence N. 63, ord. 167/2025, section 9.1, they acknowledged the group of people who made attempts in good faith, but unsuccessfully, to secure an appointment for citizenship jure sanguinis prior to March 27, 2025. The court did not specifically rule on this group of people, allowing a promising path forward for them.
The Constitutional Court vs the Court of Cassation
There are key differences in which the Italian courts operate, which affect the ways laws are interpreted and applied. The Constitutional Court primarily looks at the validity of Italian laws and whether or not they violate Italy’s constitution. They also focus on conflicts between Italian regions. In contrast the Court of Cassation focuses on how laws should be interpreted and applied, and are the highest court of appeal for civil and criminal cases.
The Supreme Court of Cassation’s new ruling
Now, on May 12, 2026, the Court of Cassation has issued its own ruling affecting citizenship by descent applicants. The ruling comes as a result of the Court of Appeal of Genoa rejecting the applicants’ decision to appeal through the courts when they had been unsuccessful in securing a citizenship appointment. The Court of Cassation overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, claiming that applicants could appeal to the courts if they had not found success through other routes.
The basis of the Court of Cassation’s decision is that jure sanguinis is an inherent right, and if applicants find themselves blocked in the administrative process, that they are then allowed to go to a judge. In the particular case that led to the Court of Cassation’s decision, the applicants showed that they had tried multiple times without success to book an appointment with the consulate. The consulate had also reportedly been closed to appointments following the health emergency of 2020, with no official notice of when it would resume activities.
What this means for future citizenship by descent cases
While the case cited above was initially presented in 2022, the principles that the Court of Cassation laid for its ruling are essentially the same that can be used for applicants in the same position who find themselves affected by the Tajani Decree, i.e. those who unsuccessfully tried to book a consulate appointment before the decree. Essentially, the Court of Cassation affirmed that citizenship jure sanguinis is a right that the state cannot strip away from an individual, and when an application is granted citizenship, it is considered to be the recognition of a preexisting status. Therefore, such individuals have the right to pursue whatever avenues might be open to them to have their citizenship recognized.
As noted at the beginning, the Constitutional Court had left open the question of whether those who attempted to file applications before the Tajani Decree could still do so and be considered under the old rules. Given the Supreme Court of Cassation’s recent statement, it seems highly likely that such individuals can successfully file applications under the old rules if they found themselves unable to secure a consular appointment through no fault of their own.
Finally, as mentioned, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that the right to citizenship is a right that is gained at birth. Consequently, it is possible that such principle will be taken into consideration during the upcoming Constitutional Court’s review of the Tajani Decree.
Conclusion
Have further questions about how this might affect your own case? Contact Italian Citizenship Assistance today at [email protected]
