On July 23, 2026, Italy’s Constitutional Court did something few people expected. Less than three months after upholding the 2025 reform that restricts Italian citizenship by descent, the same Court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg to decide whether that reform is compatible with EU law.

The Court has not changed its mind about the reform (Tajani Decree). But for the first time, the final word on a key question now belongs to a court outside Italy. Here is what happened, in plain English, and what it could mean for you.

Quick answer: Ordinanza 147/2026 of the Constitutional Court does not strike down Law 74/2025. The law remains in force, and consulates, Comuni, and courts continue to apply it. The Constitutional Court has asked the EU Court of Justice whether the law is compatible with EU citizenship rights. The case is now pending in Luxembourg as C-816/26 Picuso, and a ruling is not realistically expected before late 2027.

Timeline: how we got here

• March 27, 2025, 11:59 p.m. Rome time: the last moment to file an application or receive an appointment under the old rules.
• March 28, 2025: the emergency decree restricting citizenship by descent takes effect.
• May 23, 2025: Parliament converts the decree into Law 74/2025, with some amendments.
• July 31, 2025: in Sentenza 142/2025, the Constitutional Court rejects challenges to the old unlimited system.
• February 12, 2026: the CJEU decides Petlichev, stressing that constitutional courts must generally refer EU law questions to Luxembourg.
• April 30, 2026: in Sentenza 63/2026, the Constitutional Court upholds Law 74/2025 and refuses to consult the CJEU.
• May 12, 2026: the Corte di Cassazione (ordinanza 13818/2026) confirms that obstacles created by the administration justify going directly to court.
• July 23, 2026: in Ordinanza 147/2026, the Constitutional Court refers Law 74/2025 to the CJEU. The same day, the case is registered in Luxembourg as C-816/26 Picuso.
• Late July 2026: the Corte di Cassazione, in joint sections, confirms that citizenship by descent is acquired at birth and that court cases filed before the deadline follow the old rules.
• August 26, 2026: the EU Court of Justice opens the written phase of Case C-816/26 Picuso, giving the parties, the Italian government, the European Commission, and other member states 70 days to submit observations.
• Next steps: once the written phase closes, the Court may hold a hearing, then an Advocate General will deliver an opinion before the final ruling, realistically not before late 2027.

A quick recap: what Law 74/2025 changed

For more than a century, Italy passed citizenship from parent to child with no generational limit. If your great-great-grandfather left Italy in 1890 and never naturalized before your line’s next ancestor was born, you were, in legal terms, already Italian from birth. You simply had to have it recognized by a consulate, a Comune, or a court.

On March 28, 2025, the government changed this with an emergency decree, later converted into Law 74/2025 (AKA as Tajani Decree). It added a new article (3-bis) to Italy’s citizenship law. Under it, anyone born abroad who holds another citizenship is considered never to have acquired Italian citizenship, unless one of these applies:

• they filed an application, or received an appointment, by 11:59 p.m. Rome time on March 27, 2025;
• a parent or grandparent held only Italian citizenship;
• a parent lived in Italy for at least two continuous years after becoming Italian and before the child’s birth.

The key word is “never.” The law does not just close the door for the future. It reaches back and treats millions of people who were Italian under the old rules as if they had never been Italian at all.

Round one: the Constitutional Court upholds the reform

The Tribunale di Torino challenged the reform, and on April 30, 2026 the Constitutional Court ruled in Sentenza 63/2026 that it was constitutional. In short, the Court said:

• This is not a revocation of citizenship. Nobody’s citizenship was taken away, because for people who had never applied, their status was never officially confirmed. The Court called it an “original preclusion” instead.
• Applying the law retroactively was justified. Limiting it to future births would have left the problem the reform was meant to solve (tens of millions of potential citizens with no real connection to Italy) essentially untouched.
• People who had applied deserved more protection than those who hadn’t. Filing before the deadline showed a stronger reliance on the old rules.
• EU law was clear enough to decide alone. The families asked the Court to consult the CJEU. The Court refused, reasoning that EU case law only protects people who lose a citizenship that had already been recognized.

Why EU law matters here

Italian citizenship is also EU citizenship. That means the right to live and work anywhere in the European Union, to vote in European elections, and more. Because of this, the CJEU has long held that when a country takes away its citizenship, it must respect EU principles, especially proportionality.

Two CJEU cases are particularly close to the Italian situation:

• Tjebbes (2019, Netherlands): Dutch citizens living outside the EU for ten years could lose their nationality. The CJEU said this can be legitimate, but loss cannot be automatic. Authorities must be able to look at each person’s individual situation.
• Udlændinge- og Integrationsministeriet (2023, Denmark): Danish citizens born abroad who never lived in Denmark lost citizenship at 22. The CJEU allowed it, but only if people were given a reasonable window to ask to keep it, with an individual review.

Law 74/2025 offers neither an individual review nor a transition window. The Constitutional Court’s answer in April was that those cases involved people whose citizenship was already recognized, so they did not apply. Critics pointed out that the CJEU had never actually said recognition was the deciding factor. It happened to be the fact pattern in those cases, but that is not the same as a legal rule.

Round two: Ordinanza 147/2026

In July, the Constitutional Court heard new challenges from the Tribunale di Mantova and the Tribunale di Campobasso. which it had heard at a public hearing on June 9, 2026.This time, it referred a question to the CJEU. In simple terms, the question is:

Do the EU Treaties prevent a member state from treating people born abroad, including those born before the law took effect, as never having acquired its citizenship?

The Court was careful to say it still believes its April reasoning is correct. It explained the referral as a gesture of “loyal cooperation” with the EU, and as a recognition that only the CJEU can give the definitive interpretation of EU law.

Case C-816/26 Picuso: where things stand

The Constitutional Court’s question was registered at the EU Court of Justice on July 23, 2026, as Case C-816/26. “Picuso” is not anyone’s real name: the Court assigns fictional names to protect the privacy of the families involved.

On August 26, 2026, the Court opened the written phase of the proceedings. The parties, the Italian government, the European Commission, and other EU member states have 70 days to submit written observations. After that, the Court may hold a hearing, an Advocate General will deliver an opinion, and only then will the judges rule.

Preliminary references have taken around 17 months on average in recent years. The families’ lawyers have said they intend to ask for an expedited procedure, but as of mid-September 2026 none had been granted. Realistically, a decision is unlikely before late 2027 or 2028.

What Ordinanza 147/2026 does not do

• It does not cancel or suspend Law 74/2025.
• It does not reopen consular applications for people excluded by the law.
• It does not automatically suspend pending court cases: each judge decides.
• It does not pause appeal deadlines for anyone who has received a negative decision.

Why the change of approach?

The Court did not say so directly, but the most likely explanation is a CJEU ruling from February 2026, Petlichev. In that case the CJEU indicated that national constitutional courts, when reviewing laws that fall within the scope of EU law, count as courts of last instance. Courts of last instance are generally required to refer EU law questions to Luxembourg, unless the answer is already settled by CJEU case law or is completely obvious.

Seen through that lens, the April decision was on shaky ground. The Constitutional Court had relied on the idea that the CJEU’s case law already answered the question, but the answer was arguably not that clear. Sooner or later, a lower court or the Corte di Cassazione would likely have sent the question to Luxembourg anyway. By doing it itself, the Constitutional Court kept control of how the question was framed.

One more tension: Italian citizenship is recognized, not granted

There is a deeper issue in the April ruling. Italy’s highest courts have always held that citizenship by descent is acquired at birth. A consulate or court decision does not create it. It only confirms something that already existed. The Corte di Cassazione, sitting in joint sections (Sezioni Unite), confirmed this again in July 2026.

Yet Sentenza 63/2026 gave decisive weight to whether someone had applied for that confirmation. In practice, it treated an act that is supposed to be merely declaratory as if it made a real difference to whether you were a citizen. That tension is one of the points the CJEU may now have to weigh.

What happens next

• Law 74/2025 remains in force. Nothing changes automatically. Consulates and Comuni will keep applying the current rules while Case C-816/26 Picuso is pending.
• The Constitutional Court is on hold. The challenges from Mantova and Campobasso are suspended until the EU Court of Justice answers. The Constitutional Court will then resume them in light of that answer.
• The Torino case is probably still open. Because so little time has passed, the families in the case decided in April can likely ask the Tribunale di Torino to wait for the EU Court’s answer.
• Possible outcomes range widely. The EU Court could confirm the Italian approach, or it could require Italy to provide an individual review or a transition window, as it did for the Netherlands and Denmark.

The “I tried to book an appointment” problem

One question remains unresolved: what about people who tried to start the process before March 27, 2025, but never got an appointment? Law 74/2025 protects those who filed an application or received an appointment, not those who asked for one and were left waiting.

Italian courts are divided. The Tribunale di Firenze has held that consular dysfunction cannot be held against the applicant: if you can document concrete attempts to obtain an appointment before the deadline, you should be treated like someone who had one. The Tribunale di Palermo went a step further in June 2026, ruling that being on an official consular waiting list before the deadline is enough to apply the old rules. The Naples courts have also accepted documented booking attempts.

The Tribunale di Bologna, on the other hand, has repeatedly held that only a formal application or a confirmed appointment counts, because going to court was always an option, although at least one favorable ruling from the same court has also been reported.

The Corte di Cassazione, in ordinanza 13818/2026, confirmed that obstacles created by the administration justify going directly to court. However, the Constitutional Court has twice declined to rule on this point, because it was not properly raised before it. Until a higher court settles it, the outcome depends heavily on which court hears your case and on the evidence you can provide.

For an overview of how different courts are deciding, read Italian Citizenship by Descent After Law 74/2025: How Courts Are Deciding.

Who is affected: five common situations

1. You applied or received an appointment before the deadline. You are not affected by Law 74/2025. Your application follows the old rules, and the Corte di Cassazione confirmed this in July 2026 for court cases filed in time.

2. Your parent or grandparent held only Italian citizenship. You can still be recognized under the new rules. The same applies if your parent lived in Italy for two continuous years after becoming Italian and before you were born.

3. Your Italian ancestor is a great-grandparent or further back, and you never applied. Under current law, you are excluded. The CJEU’s answer is now the main open door. If Luxembourg requires Italy to offer an individual review or a transition window, as it did for the Netherlands and Denmark, this group could benefit most. Nothing is guaranteed, but it makes sense to have your documents ready.

4. You tried to book an appointment before the deadline but never got one.This is the most contested situation, and results vary from court to court. Evidence is everything: waiting list confirmations, Prenot@mi screenshots, emails, consulate replies, anything with a date on

5. You filed a court case after the deadline and it is still pending. Your lawyer should consider asking the judge to suspend the case until the CJEU rules, instead of risking a rejection now

Read also: Italian Citizenship and the Minor Issue: The Cassazione Confirms Your Claim May Survive a Parent’s Naturalization

Frequently asked questions