Italian Citizenship Law Referred to EU Court of Justice

Italy's Constitutional Court Refers New Jure Sanguinis Citizenship Law to the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Italian Constitutional Court today has taken a significant procedural step in the ongoing legal debate surrounding Italy's new jure sanguinis citizenship legislation.

Rather than issuing a final ruling on the constitutionality of Law No. 74/2025, the Court has suspended the procedure and referred key questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), in this way recognizing that the compatibility of the new legislation with European Union law must first be clarified.

This decision is highly significant. It confirms that the issues raised by the reform extend beyond Italian constitutional law and involve fundamental principles of EU law, including legal certainty, proportionality, the protection of legitimate expectations, and the rights associated with European Union citizenship.

What Does the Referral Mean?

The Constitutional Court has not invalidated the new law. The legislation therefore remains in force while the CJEU considers the questions referred by the Italian Court.

The eventual judgment of the CJEU is likely to shape not only the Constitutional Court's final decision but also the future of thousands of pending administrative and judicial proceedings concerning Italian citizenship by descent.

Implications for Citizenship Applicants

For individuals seeking recognition of Italian citizenship jure sanguinis, the legal landscape remains unchanged for the time being, as the statutory restrictions introduced by Law No. 74/2025 continue to apply.

Nevertheless, the outcome of the proceedings before the European Court of Justice may have profound consequences for applicants whose claims have been affected by the 2025 reform.

A Different Litigation Strategy - Female line -

From the outset of this legislative reform, we have developed a litigation strategy that differs from the constitutional law arguments currently raised before the Constitutional Courts.

Our approach is specifically designed for claims in which Italian citizenship is transmitted through a female ancestor. In these cases, we rely on legal arguments that, to the best of our knowledge, have not yet been advanced in the constitutional proceedings currently pending.

The Constitutional Court's referral to the CJEU does not affect this strategy. Because it is based on different legal grounds, it remains available as a distinct avenue for challenging the application of the new law.

For this reason, we continue to pursue this litigation strategy in appropriate cases as a means of opening a different legal pathway for contesting the restrictions introduced by the 2025 reform.

While no litigation can guarantee a particular outcome, presenting alternative legal grounds may provide the courts with an opportunity to examine aspects of the reform that have not yet been considered in the pending constitutional proceedings.

If You Applied - or Tried to Apply - Through a Consulate Before the 2025 Reform

By now one further group deserves specific attention: applicants who were already in the consular pipeline when the law changed. This includes those who submitted an application for recognition of Italian citizenship before the 2025 reform and were rejected, those whose applications remain pending without a decision, and those who attempted to secure a consular appointment before the new legislation entered into force but were unable to obtain one due to the well-documented lack of appointment availability.

In our view, these cases may present as well additional legal arguments that are distinct from those currently under consideration by the Constitutional Court and the CJEU.

In appropriate cases, it may be possible to argue that the 2025 reform should be interpreted in a manner that excludes these applicants from the newly introduced generational limitation, particularly where they had already taken concrete steps to exercise rights recognized under the previous legal framework before the legislation entered into force.

The viability of this approach necessarily depends on the specific facts of each individual case, including the timing of the applicant's actions and the procedural history of the matter. For this reason, each case requires an individual legal assessment.

How We Are Responding: Pending Cases and Cases Ready to File

The referral raises an immediate, practical question for every applicant with a case pending before an Italian court — and for every family whose petition is ready to be filed: what happens now?

In the interim, individual courts retain meaningful discretion in how they manage citizenship proceedings. Some may suspend cases until the CJEU has ruled; others may adjourn hearings to later dates; others may continue to hear and decide cases under the law as it stands. Divergent approaches between courts are to be expected, this is a normal feature of every major constitutional and European challenge, and it is not, in itself, a reason to put your case on hold.

Our immediate responsibility is to our clients. We are reviewing the position of each pending case individually, where it stands procedurally, which court is handling it, how the referral is likely to affect its management and timing, and whether the distinct arguments described above, for maternal-line cases and for pre-reform consular applicants, strengthen or supplement the grounds already raised.

We are carrying out the same assessment for new cases, because for some applicants the referral changes the strategic calculus of when and where to file. Where moving forward serves the client, we move; where different timing serves the client better, we say so plainly.

Timing also matters. Applicants who have already received a negative decision face strict appeal deadlines: those windows are unforgiving, and preserving the right to challenge a refusal requires acting within them.

For new claims, there can be real value in filing while the European question is pending: a case already before a court when the CJEU rules will be decided in light of that ruling.

Whether filing now or waiting is the right course for you remains a case-specific judgment - which is exactly why we review each position individually.

Our position on the substance has not changed: a legal status that existed at birth should not be extinguished retroactively, without warning, by a deadline no one could have anticipated.

Since we are born as litigation attorneys, we will continue to pursue every remedy the law provides, before every competent court, on the legal grounds best suited to each individual case, while the European and Italian courts resolve the questions now before them.

Looking Ahead

The referral to the CJEU marks only the beginning of the next phase of this important legal dispute.

At the same time, another landmark decision is still pending.

The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), sitting in its United Sections (Sezioni Unite), has yet to rule on important questions concerning the legal framework that existed before the 2025 reform. That judgment is expected to clarify significant issues relating to the previous citizenship regime and will likely influence future litigation as well.

The interaction between Italian constitutional law, European Union law, and the forthcoming guidance from the Supreme Court will play a decisive role in shaping the future of Italian citizenship by descent.

We will continue to monitor all of these proceedings closely and provide updates as new developments emerge. At the same time, we remain committed to pursuing innovative legal arguments where appropriate, particularly in cases involving maternal lines of descent that present legal issues not yet considered by the Italian courts.

If your Italian citizenship claim is affected by the 2025 reform our firm can evaluate your case. Contact us at +1 303-740-2000 (USA).

This article is general information, not legal advice. Litigation outcomes depend on the specific facts and procedural posture of each case; consult a qualified attorney about your specific situation.