On 5 February 2026, the Specialized Immigration Section of the Tribunal of Campobasso issued a significant order in the field of Italian citizenship by descent (iure sanguinis), referring the question of constitutionality of article 3-bis of law 91/1992 to the Constitutional Court. This provision was introduced by decree-law 36/2025, later converted into law 74/2025.

The case involves two Brazilian nationals seeking recognition of their Italian citizenship through uninterrupted descent from an Italian ancestor born in Bojano (Campobasso) in 1881, who emigrated to Brazil without ever acquiring Brazilian citizenship.

The application was filed after decree-law 36/2025 came into force. The Ministry of the Interior argued that the new article 3-bis barred recognition of citizenship, since none of the statutory exceptions applied. However, the Tribunal suspended the proceedings and referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, finding the constitutional challenge both relevant and not manifestly unfounded.

This decision of the Tribunal of Campobasso does not stand in isolation. It follows earlier judicial initiatives adopted by the Tribunal of Turin and and the Tribunal of Mantua, which have likewise raised constitutional concerns regarding the retroactive application of Decree-Law No. 36/2025 and the newly introduced Article 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992.

The claim under the pre-2025 legal framework

The Tribunal explicitly acknowledged that under the legal regime in force before decree-law 36/2025, the claim would have been clearly well-founded.

The applicants provided complete documentary evidence showing uninterrupted descent from an Italian citizen, the absence of any voluntary renunciation of Italian citizenship by the ancestor, and no legally valid interruption in the transmission of citizenship.

The court recalled the settled case law of the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione, Sezioni Unite), which establishes that Italian citizenship acquired by birth is original, permanent, imprescriptible, and can only be lost through voluntary renunciation.

The court specifically relied on principles affirmed in decisions 4466/2009 and 25317-25318/2022, which recognize that judicial rulings on citizenship iure sanguinis are declaratory, not constitutive. Citizenship exists from birth and judicial recognition merely certifies an already existing legal status.

Under the pre-2025 framework, the applicants would have been considered Italian citizens from birth.

Applicability of article 3-bis of law 91/1992

The Tribunal observed that the application was filed on 26 August 2025, after decree-law 36/2025 entered into force. Therefore, the new article 3-bis formally applied.

Article 3-bis provides that persons born abroad, even before the provision entered into force, who hold another citizenship are deemed never to have acquired Italian citizenship, unless one of a limited number of exceptions applies. These include submission of an administrative or judicial application by 27 March 2025, having an ancestor of the first or second degree holding exclusively Italian citizenship, or having a parent who resided in Italy for at least two years prior to the applicant’s birth.

None of these exceptions applied to the applicants.

Given the clear and exhaustive wording of the provision, the Tribunal excluded the possibility of an interpretation consistent with the Constitution, thus satisfying the admissibility requirements for referral to the Constitutional Court.

Retroactive effects and substantive revocation of citizenship

The central issue identified by the Tribunal concerns the substantive effect of article 3-bis.

Although formally applicable only to applications filed after its entry into force, the provision affects individuals already born under the previous legal regime, retroactively negates the automatic acquisition of citizenship by descent, and in substance revokes a legal status already acquired at birth.

The court rejected the Government’s characterization of article 3-bis as a mere procedural rule governed by the principle tempus regit actum. Instead, the Tribunal found that the provision produces effects equivalent to an ex tunc loss of citizenship, notwithstanding the declaratory nature of citizenship judgments.

Conflict with articles 2 and 3 of the constitution: legitimate expectation and equality

The Tribunal found a serious conflict with the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectation, reasonableness, and equality.

Individuals born before the reform legitimately relied on a stable legal framework under which citizenship was acquired automatically by birth. Conditioning recognition on the mere date of filing an application introduces arbitrary distinctions based on factors outside the individual’s control, such as access to legal counsel, financial resources, and administrative delays.

Such differentiation lacks rational justification and violates article 3 of the Constitution.

Violation of article 22 of the constitution: prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of citizenship

Article 22 of the Italian Constitution prohibits deprivation of citizenship for political reasons.

The Tribunal interpreted this provision broadly, holding that it precludes any arbitrary and automatic loss of citizenship based on political or policy considerations, including demographic, identity-based, or security-related objectives.

Article 3-bis produces a mass and indiscriminate deprivation of citizenship without reference to individual conduct or voluntary acts. This is precisely the type of measure that article 22 seeks to prevent.

Conflict with European Union law (article 117 of the constitution)

The Tribunal also identified a violation of article 117(1) of the Constitution in relation to articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU.

By retroactively excluding individuals from Italian citizenship, the provision automatically deprives them of EU citizenship without individual assessment, procedural safeguards, transitional measures, or the possibility of retaining or recovering citizenship.

This approach is incompatible with the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union, particularly in cases C-221/17 and C-689/21, which require proportionality and individual evaluation when national measures affect EU citizenship.

Procedural unconstitutionality: articles 72 and 77 of the constitution

Finally, the Tribunal questioned the use of emergency legislation.

Citizenship directly affects the composition of the electorate, political rights, and the constitutional identity of the State. As such, it requires full parliamentary debate under the ordinary legislative procedure.

The alleged urgency invoked by the Government—administrative burden and demographic concerns—was found to concern long-standing phenomena and therefore insufficient to justify recourse to a decree-law.

Conclusion and referral to the constitutional court

For all these reasons, the Tribunal of Campobasso held that article 3-bis of law 91/1992 is constitutionally suspect insofar as it applies to persons born before its entry into force and conditions recognition of citizenship on procedural deadlines.

The proceedings were suspended, and the case was referred to the Italian Constitutional Court for review.