Introduction
For decades, Italy consistently recognized dual citizenship for individuals born abroad to Italian parents, even if the parent later naturalized in another country. However, in a significant legal shift, the Supreme Court of Cassation has recently questioned this principle.
Two separate but similar cases—both involving descendants of Italian mothers who emigrated to the U.S.—have reopened the debate around the so-called “minor case” and the interpretation of Article 12 of Law No. 555/1912.
This article explores the legal background, the reasoning behind the new interpretation, and the potential implications for thousands of descendants seeking to reclaim or confirm their Italian citizenship.
Legal Background: Articles 7 and 12 of Law 555/1912
- Article 7 provides that Italian citizens born and residing in a foreign country that grants citizenship by birth (jus soli) retain Italian citizenship unless they explicitly renounce it upon reaching legal adulthood.
- Article 12(2) states that unemancipated minor children of a person who loses Italian citizenship also become foreigners, provided they reside with the parent and acquire the foreign nationality.
For a complete overview read our guide on Italian dual citizenship and the minor case: changes and legal challenges explained.
Historically, the Ministry of the Interior interpreted these provisions in favor of dual citizens: if a child was born abroad and acquired a foreign citizenship by birth, their Italian citizenship was not considered lost—even if a parent naturalized while the child was still a minor.
The Shift: Corte di Cassazione Rulings in 2023 and 2024
Three rulings by the Italian Corte di Cassazione (n. 17161/2023 n. 454/2024, and n. 23212/2024) introduced a new interpretation. The Court argued that Article 12 applies not only when a child acquires foreign citizenship due to the parent’s naturalization but also when the child was already a foreign citizen at birth. According to this view, if the parent naturalized while the child was a minor and they lived together, the child automatically lost Italian citizenship—even if they had dual nationality from birth.
The Court justified this on two grounds:
- Patriarchal family structure of the early 20th century placed decisions in the hands of the family head.
- The state’s interest is only in avoiding statelessness, not in how or when a person becomes a foreign national.
The Circular of the Ministry of the Interior of October 31, 2024
Following the Supreme Court’s interpretation, the Ministry of the Interior issued Circular No. 43347, which adopted this stricter reading. According to the circular, the transmission of citizenship is interrupted if a parent naturalized while the child was a minor—unless the child actively reacquired Italian citizenship upon reaching adulthood (as per Articles 3 and 9 of Law 555/1912).
However, this provision is almost impossible to apply in practice, particularly in cases involving mothers. Until 1983, Italian law did not recognize citizenship transmission from mothers, meaning many descendants never knew they had lost a right they were never allowed to claim.
Looking for a simpler overview?
Check out our plain-language guide to understand what these court rulings mean for families applying for Italian citizenship Italian Citizenship by Descent: Understanding the “Minor Case Issue” in 2025
The 2025 Cases: A Call for Clarity from the Sezioni Unite
Two cases brought forward in 2025 challenge this interpretation. Both involve descendants born in the early 1930s to Italian mothers who naturalized in the U.S. during their minority
The petitioners argue:
- The child did not “acquire” foreign citizenship during minority, as they were born with it.
- No express renunciation of Italian citizenship ever occurred.
- The mother did not exercise parental authority at the time.
- Impossibility of awareness of loss due to pre-1948 maternal transmission exclusion (Arts. 3 and 9)
Both rulings from the Court of Cassation recognize a “serious interpretive conflict” between Articles 7 and 12. The First Civil Section has referred both matters to the First President of the Court, who may submit them to the Sezioni Unite (United Sections), the Court’s highest chamber for resolving jurisprudential splits.
Does the New Article 3-bis Apply Retroactively? A Key Preliminary Question in Citizenship Loss Cases
The Italian Corte di Cassazione raises also another important preliminary issue: whether Article 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992, introduced by Decree Law No. 36 of March 28, 2025 (converted with modifications by Law No. 74 of May 23, 2025), may apply retroactively to ongoing legal proceedings, even when the facts at issue occurred long before the law entered into force.
The text of the decision explicitly states that the court must address, as indicated by the Office of the Prosecutor General, two questions—one preliminary and one parallel to the main issue referred to the Sezioni Unite (explained above) The preliminary question is whether the new Article 3-bis can govern the case at hand, despite the fact that the events took place prior to the 2025 legislative reform.
Article 3-bis, in essence, introduces a more restrictive framework: individuals born abroad who already hold a foreign citizenship do not automatically acquire Italian citizenship. This provision applies retroactively, affecting even those born before the law came into effect. It also outlines a narrow set of exceptions—for example, where citizenship was recognized before March 27, 2025, or where a judicial application was filed before that date.
Although this article does not directly regulate the loss of citizenship by a minor due to a parent’s naturalization, the court is considering whether its retroactive nature could nevertheless influence current proceedings that touch upon related principles, such as continuity of citizenship or eligibility under historical norms.
This raises a broader question of intertemporal law: Can a new, more restrictive rule on citizenship acquisition be used to justify or reinforce the denial of citizenship in pending cases, even when the events occurred many decades ago under a different legal regime?
How the Sezioni Unite answer this question could have significant implications. If Article 3-bis is found to apply retroactively to these kinds of disputes, it may reinforce the stricter line taken by the Ministry of the Interior and the most recent Supreme Court rulings. Conversely, if the court finds that such a provision cannot affect pre-existing legal situations, this could preserve more favorable interpretive routes for those seeking citizenship recognition based on earlier, less restrictive frameworks.
Why It Matters
If the Sezioni Unite rule in favor of the petitioners, it could:
- Overturn decades of case law applying Article 12 restrictively.
- Restore citizenship to thousands who lost it as minors due to a parent’s naturalization.
- Force the Ministry to revise Circular October 31 2025 and related policies.
- Strengthen legal challenges already pending before Italian consulates and courts.
Conclusion
The upcoming decision by the Sezioni Unite of the Supreme Court could be a turning point in Italian citizenship law. As the legal foundation is reexamined, descendants of Italian emigrants may soon have renewed pathways to reclaiming their rightful heritage.
July 25, 2025
