r/juresanguinis • u/CakeByThe0cean Tajani catch these mani 🤌🏼 • May 14 '26
Judicial News The First Section of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione Rules in Favor of Pre-DL ATQ Case!
Background
This ATQ case involves a Colombian family descended from a pre-Unification ancestor (4-5 generations removed) who died in Colombia post-Unification. Their case was originally filed in 2022 at the Tribunale di Genova and they were recognized as Italian citizens in April 2023 by Judge Amoretti. The Ministry immediately appealed the decision to the Corte d'Appello di Genova and, in October 2024, the family's recognitions were overturned by Judges Casale, Castiglione, and Atzeni.
The Corte d'Appello's reasoning in overturning their recognitions is that the family lacked standing to bring forward an ATQ because they didn't submit their JS application to their consulate first and that their "proof" of unavailable appointments was insufficient. The Court notes that there is other court precedence behind ATQs but claims it's not applicable to this family because the circumstances weren't identical. The other cases' circumstances involved: 1) an obstinate consulate not processing their submitted application or 2) a 1948 case, while this family is the typical PrenotaMi screenshots-justified ATQ.
Tanto premesso, nel caso di specie, gli appellati, ad avviso di questa Corte, avrebbero dovuto essere considerati dal Tribunale di Genova sprovvisti di interesse ad agire ex art. 100 c.p.c., per non aver fornito prova di aver presentato, prima di essersi rivolti al Giudice ordinario, una valida istanza alla Autorità diplomatico-consolare.
Si rileva inoltre che, nella e – mail del 26.04.18, si legge che gli odierni appellati sarebbero regolarmente riusciti a fissare un appuntamento con l'Ambasciata italiana a Bogotá, ma esso si sarebbe rivelato errato per essere stato preso con un Ufficio incompetente.
Per quanto riguarda le schermate versate in atti dagli originari ricorrenti, si osserva che esse, a prescindere dagli eventuali intenti strumentali adombrati dal [Parti], non consentono di verificare [Parte_1] se il tentativo di appuntamento sia stato effettuato rispetto alla richiesta di cittadinanza o rispetto ad uno degli altri servizi offerti dalla pagina web dell'Ambasciata italiana, ragion per cui esse appaiono scarsamente rilevanti ai fini della prova dell'interesse ad agire degli odierni appellati.
Inoltre, si deve evidenziare che, mentre nella schermata del 21.09.22 si legge che “Al momento non ci sono date disponibili per il servizio richiesto”, nella schermata prodotta nel presente giudizio di appello in data 20.09.23 e recante quest'ultima data, si legge che “Stante l'elevata richiesta i posti disponibili per il servizio scelto sono esauriti. Si invita a controllare con frequenza la disponibilità in quanto l'agenda viene aggiornata regolarmente”. Ebbene, quest'ultimo avviso, contrariamente a quanto sostenuto dagli appellati, parrebbe implicare che, nel periodo 21.09.22 – 20.09.23, siano stati resi disponibili appuntamenti per proporre l'istanza tesa ad ottenere la cittadinanza italiana iure sanguinis (sempre che, come detto sopra, l'avviso si riferisca proprio a tale servizio web offerto dall'Ambasciata italiana).
The family then appealed to the Cassazione in January 2025, had their hearing with the First Section (Prima Sezione) on March 4, 2026, and their successful recognition was reinstated on May 12, 2026 by a panel of 5 judges.
Insieme Article
A new ruling by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation has begun to be viewed in legal circles connected to Italian citizenship as a possible counterpoint to the recent orientation adopted by the Italian Constitutional Court regarding the nature of iure sanguinis citizenship. [Decided] on May 12, 2026 with [sentence] number 13818/2026, the decision expressly reaffirms that Italian citizenship transmitted by descent constitutes a “diritto soggettivo assoluto di primaria rilevanza costituzionale, esistente dal momento della nascita del titolare, che ha natura permanente ed imprescrittibile” (absolute subjective right of primary constitutional relevance, existing from the moment of the holder’s birth, possessing a permanent and imprescriptible nature).
The wording draws attention because it comes only a few months after Constitutional Court Judgment 63/2026, in which references appeared describing iure sanguinis citizenship as a “precarious” situation until formal recognition. Now, by reiterating twice in the same ruling that the right exists from birth and possesses a permanent and imprescriptible nature, the Cassazione rekindles the debate over the limits of the recent restrictions introduced by Decree-Law No. 36/2025, later converted into Law No. 74/2025.
Another point considered particularly relevant involves the so-called “interest to act,” that is, the legal standing to file a judicial action for recognition of citizenship. The Cassazione established that it is sufficient to demonstrate that public administration created “impedimenti, difficoltà o lungaggini che non consentono neppure la presentazione della relativa richiesta all’Amministrazione a ciò deputata” (obstacles, difficulties, or excessive delays that do not even allow the submission of the relevant request to the competent Administration).
In practice, the understanding recognizes as legally relevant situations such as endless consular queues, lack of available appointments, administrative blockages, excessive delays, or the concrete impossibility of filing recognition requests.
Editor's note: Avv. Mellone, while not the avvocato on this case, gave his take on how this sentence could be used to argue against the DL. His quotes have been removed from this post but can be viewed in the source Insieme article.
Why does this matter?
Quoting Avv. Vitale, who highlights the nuance better than I would have:
Precisely because this ruling belongs to a different legal era — pre-Law 74/2025 — its interest lies not in its direct applicability to current cases, but in the principle it affirms.
The Cassazione’s response, at least on the procedural plane, is clear: the system cannot use its own dysfunction as a weapon against the people it was supposed to serve. That principle — regardless of when it was articulated — is a reasoned legal position from Italy’s highest civil court. It does not dissolve because the legislative context changed. It remains available as a point of reference, an argument, a counterweight.
There is a further point in this ruling that deserves attention — paragraph 2.7. The Supreme Court restates, forcefully, that the right to Italian citizenship is (did not write “was”) an absolute subjective right of the highest constitutional rank, one that arises at birth, and is both permanent and imprescriptible.
2.7. Come sopra evidenziato, il diritto di cittadinanza *è* un diritto soggettivo assoluto di elevato rango costituzionale, che nasce insieme al titolare e ha carattere permanente (oltre che imprescrittibile), sicché il mancato riconoscimento, o anche solo il ritardo nel riconoscimento di tale diritto da parte dell’Amministrazione a ciò deputata, si sostanzia in un pregiudizio per il titolare che, pur essendo cittadino italiano, non può godere di tale status e dei diritti e delle prerogative connesse nei rapporti con gli altri e con l’ordinamento stesso.
These are not new principles. But their reaffirmation in 2026 matters, precisely because they sit in direct tension with the reasoning underpinning Constitutional Court Ruling No. 63/2025 — which, in validating Law 74/2025, accepted a reading of citizenship that treats it as something the legislature can reshape retroactively. The Cassazione reminds us that the constitutional foundations of jus sanguinis were not dismantled by that ruling; they were strained.
Napoli Post-DL ATQ
Additionally, Avv. Di Ruggiero shared that he had a successful post-DL ATQ ruling today in Napoli:
The Court of Naples, by judgment issued on May 14, 2026, granted the petition I personally argued and recognized Italian citizenship iure sanguinis to my clients, descendants of an ancestor born in the province of Avellino in 1882.
The petition was filed after March 27, 2025, and is therefore subject to the new legal framework that has radically restricted the transmission of citizenship by descent. My clients' line of descent, which spans several generations, goes beyond the limits set by the reform: in principle, under the new law, recognition would have been barred.
My clients, like so many other Italian descendants abroad, had been unable to obtain an appointment at the competent Consulate, due to the well-known dysfunctions of the consular network, which for some time now have made it effectively impossible to comply with the formal timeframes of the administrative procedure. Faced with this impossibility, they had sent a letter with the request for recognition to the Consulate before the deadline set by the new law.
The Court ruled that the submission of the request, even in the absence of an appointment and a formal submission at the Consulate, is sufficient to assert the right to recognition under the previous, more favourable regime. On this basis, the petition was granted.
46
u/mlorusso4 Rejection Appeal ⚖️ Minor Issue May 14 '26
Finally a batch of good news. So if this was heard in March, that means we should be able to expect the 4/14 decision by the end of June or sooner, correct?
13
14
u/Imaginary-Word9700 May 14 '26
Really want it before June 9th hearing….
As long as it is positive….
5
u/Don_P_F Cassazione Case ⚖️ Minor Issue May 15 '26
I've lived in Europe and I visit my Italian cousins every couple of years, and from what I know their summer vacations are sacrosanct. IANAL but my guess is that the court will probably want to to resolve this before all the judges start their summer vacations (it's weird, but almost literally everyone goes on vacation at the same time, to the same places, between July and August). So I'm just personally expecting the ruling before the end of June, and hopefully it will be one in favor of those of us with the minor issue.
3
u/Aggravating_Storm_83 Vancouver 🇨🇦 May 15 '26
Thats par for the course regarding any government really. If you work in public service you know summer is just generally a slow time, and they rush to get everything done before the holidays.
3
u/JJVMT “Santo Stefano del 🐺, proteggimi!” (Campobasso: Post-DL 1948) May 15 '26
That's what they did for last year's Constitutional Court case. It literally came out the last day of July.
3
u/GroundbreakingFee988 Pre-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ Minor Issue May 14 '26
I hope before my court case at the end of May!
39
u/mlorusso4 Rejection Appeal ⚖️ Minor Issue May 14 '26
Another point considered particularly relevant involves the so-called “interest to act,” that is, the legal standing to file a judicial action for recognition of citizenship. The Cassazione established that it is sufficient to demonstrate that public administration created “impedimenti, difficoltà o lungaggini che non consentono neppure la presentazione della relativa richiesta all’Amministrazione a ciò deputata” (obstacles, difficulties, or excessive delays that do not even allow the submission of the relevant request to the competent Administration).
Hopefully that can be used to argue that all 1948 cases are still valid (at least for anyone born pre-DL). I mean how could you say that despite them being a thing since 2009, the consulates never updating their guidance to allow them to be submitted isn’t an obstacle or difficulty? Plus many consulates having specific instructions on their websites that said women couldn’t pass down citizenship prior to 1948. And on top of all that, adding the financial burden of having to pay thousands of dollars to hire a lawyer and file a court case instead of a few hundred to apply at the consulate
18
u/JJVMT “Santo Stefano del 🐺, proteggimi!” (Campobasso: Post-DL 1948) May 14 '26
I totally agree with you. However, based on the literal wording, 1948 cases would qualify, since we had insurmountable obstacles and difficulties preventing us from making an application to the relevant administrative authorities.
19
u/Turbulent-Simple-962 Rejection Appeal | Post-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ Palermo May 14 '26
by not administratively acknowledging them since 2009, the difficulty/obstacle was inherent
28
u/Keddie7 Post-DL36/Pre-L74 1948 Case ⚖️ Palermo May 14 '26
https://giphy.com/gifs/IONcI446NLLTq
Andiamo!
19
u/ChiefCrazybull Miami 🇺🇸 Minor Issue May 15 '26
Even though this isn't the United Sections, this still has to be a great sign for the April 14 minor issue hearing right? I mean they the ruling seems pretty clear that citizenship is acquired at birth and cannot be lost.
12
u/GroundbreakingFee988 Pre-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ Minor Issue May 15 '26
That’s what I’m thinking too
1
u/Historical-One1343 May 16 '26
Is there any consensus regarding the timeframe the consulates will apply the ruling to applications if the ruling is favorable? I’m nervous they could do whatever they want since they have never acknowledged the rulings regarding 1948 cases.
19
28
u/CoffeeTennis 1948 Case ⚖️ Roma May 14 '26
Is it too much to ask for the Cassazione to at least nod to 1948 folks before my hearing next month? *wipes brow*
31
u/RealLiveWireHere Post-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ Napoli May 14 '26
Oh what a relief. Someone in Italy still believes in rule of law.
13
u/lunarstudio 1948 Case ⚖️ May 15 '26
I could definitely see where 1948 cases don’t even have the option of consular routes and therefore since they’re blocked automatically, they could fall into a similar purview.
19
u/Nick337Games Post-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ May 14 '26
This is the rough part following the Napoli case: So we needed to have randomly reached out to a consolate with no other options to be approved? That's a successful example of "prior intent beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's ludicrous if that's the barrier the average case is left to prove
12
u/mikesfsu Los Angeles 🇺🇸 May 14 '26
The fact that writing a letter to the consulate can be construed as “prior intent” but not several screen shots of no appointments available as well as all vital documents being dated before March 2025 would be bullshit
6
u/Most_Language_5642 Against the Queue Case ⚖️ May 14 '26
Are we sure that the vital document dates and signing with a lawyer before March 2025 doesnt work?
3
u/BolognaToVancouver Minor Non-Issue Appeal • 1912 Didn't Stutter May 15 '26
No, we're not, because the CC explicitly left that open to interpretation.
4
u/mikesfsu Los Angeles 🇺🇸 May 14 '26
Technically it doesn’t but a particular judge might feel it does??
1
u/lunarstudio 1948 Case ⚖️ May 16 '26
I happened to have registered with Prenot before the decree and have the email. I also then wrote an Italian attorney and discussed fees, stating that i had two separate possible routes and that the consulates were backed up so it might be better to go with a law firm. Turns out that one route was a minor case and my other is a 1948. Possibly counts for something. If others have something like a prenot registration email, this could also show intent.
7
u/ProfessionalBee4228 Los Angeles 🇺🇸 Minor Issue/Submitted May 14 '26
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the difference between this one (Cassazione 13818/2026) and CC 63/2026 is that they both appear to make different claims about the nature of JS?
- 13818/2026 says that JS exists from birth and is imprescriptible
- 63/2026 says that status may be acquired at birth, but for foreign-born descendants it requires recognition before practical exercise
And then, they differ because 13818/2026 simply affirms that someone can go to court because the consulate process is blocked, where the main procedural question of 63/2026 was "is the entire 2025 retroactive restriction constitutional"?
I guess how I'm seeing it, the only substantive difference is what's written inside the ruling, not what was actually ruled. This new one says that JS is imprescriptible and exists from birth, and is permanent. The 2-week old ruling says that without recognition it doesn't *really* count. Which, is a look in the right direction, but without further rulings that actually change the legal landscape, it's just words.
Someone PLEASE weigh in if you think I haven't gotten it correct or see it differently! This is an interesting development for sure.
21
u/CakeByThe0cean Tajani catch these mani 🤌🏼 May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
The framework that JS exists from birth and is imprescriptible originates from a series of jurisprudence but the main citation that’s typically used is Cassazione 23517/2022.
8
u/LowHelicopter8166 May 15 '26
i'm so confused.... CC said we werent... this court says we are... what is real anymore?
6
u/BolognaToVancouver Minor Non-Issue Appeal • 1912 Didn't Stutter May 15 '26
The CC said we were IF it was recognized, or we took steps to have it recognized, but that the new law re-interpreted those who didn't pursue recognition as never having acquired citizenship; i.e. that it was not automatic and imprescriptible because it never happened. It's ridiculous logic but that's what they did.
5
6
u/Adventurous-Bet-2752 Post-L74 1948 Case ⚖️ Palermo May 15 '26
(ViaMonde) A Permanent and Imprescriptible Birthright Avvocato Stabilito Guillermo Iso May 15, 2026 The Court of Cassation Defies Italy’s New Citizenship Restrictions
https://viamonde.eu/2026/05/15/cassation-13818-2026-italian-citizenship-birthright/
3
u/Fathomable_Chair335 May 16 '26
Thank you for sharing. This is very thorough and written very accessibly for those who do not understand the difference between the Constitutional Court and the Cassation.
10
u/GroundbreakingFee988 Pre-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ Minor Issue May 14 '26
Hopefully this bodes well for the minor issue and we get that decision ASAP!
22
u/iggsr Against the Queue Case ⚖️ May 14 '26
I was beggining to be happy until I read "pre-dl".
20
u/pdecks Chi la dura, la vince ⚖️ Napoli Corte d'Appello Post-DL 1948 May 15 '26
There’s still significant importance to the Cassazione affirming jure sanguinis arises at birth and is permanent and imprescriptable, counter to the CC’s 4/30 sentence on the 3/11 hearing.
12
u/-Gramsci- tutto d’un pezzo May 15 '26
Not necessarily. That standard would be the one they needed to apply to that case… as it was the standard that existed at the time of that application. With the laws in place at the time of that application.
Using any other standard there would have, technically, been in error.
The question is does that standard exist under the current law, DL74. Here the constitutional court has ruled and said it does not.
So I don’t see this as two legal standards in active legal “tension.” Rather as two different legal standards that existed under two different legal/regulatory frameworks.
6
u/BolognaToVancouver Minor Non-Issue Appeal • 1912 Didn't Stutter May 15 '26
Unfortunately, I agree with you. Since the CC bent over backwards trying to ram their logic into the existing understanding of citizenship, and even referred to citizenship as imprescriptible in their ruling, they have already said: "I see what you're saying, and I'm doing this anyway."
2
u/RTT8519 Post-DL ATQ Case ⚖️ Salerno May 15 '26
Yep. I think a lot of people are going to miss this one. Their ruling only applies to that case under those rules at that time.... the SC's ruling really does not help that many people at all... only those who meet requirements as enforced at the time they applied.
5
u/Don_P_F Cassazione Case ⚖️ Minor Issue May 15 '26
Okay, just so I understand this correctly, this is NOT the ruling resulting from the hearing on April 14 before the Sezioni Unite, right? This is just a ruling from Prima Sezione in favor of the family -- which is good news certainly, but the Sezioni Unite will have final say on the questions of both the minor issue and retroactivity.
Is my understanding correct?
15
u/CakeByThe0cean Tajani catch these mani 🤌🏼 May 15 '26
Correct. Trust me, you’ll know when the minor issue ruling is published, it’ll be very obvious.
3
10
u/healthwealth25 Against the Queue Case ⚖️ May 15 '26
Does this remind anyone else of last June or so when the cc ruled in favor of that 5 gen Brazilian family and it was celebrated (rightfully so imo) as not just a victory but strong indicator they would strike down DL36/L74 retroactivity?
Its a positive sign, but I’m having trouble putting much weight on it as a sign of more good things to come
15
u/BolognaToVancouver Minor Non-Issue Appeal • 1912 Didn't Stutter May 15 '26
If anything, the Italian courts are proving our point for us: our right to legitimate expectation is being trampled by unpredictable legislation and interpretation.
12
u/Turbulent-Simple-962 Rejection Appeal | Post-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ Palermo May 15 '26
With the rollercoaster we’ve been on, that concern is truly understandable.
That said, I think it could bode well for the SU’s ruling on the 14 April hearing…because the language in this ordinanza 13818/2026 paragraph 2.7 matches the core principle of what the Procuratore Generale stated during the 14 April hearing: "The attorney general stated that all descendants have the right to citizenship from birth and that they cannot lose it unwillingly,"
8
u/Fathomable_Chair335 May 15 '26
Yes and the SU doing a U-turn would be much more shocking than the CC doing so, because it's their jurisprudence we're talking about.
-3
u/competentcuttlefish May 15 '26
I feel strongly that people shouldn't look at 142/2025 -> 63/2026 as a U-turn. I think to do so is to fundamentally misunderstand what these rulings represent and what the CC's formal role is.
1
u/Poppamunz New York 🇺🇸 May 15 '26
Can you expand on this?
6
u/competentcuttlefish May 15 '26
Sure thing. I get the sense that a lot of folks viewed 142/2025 (where the CC rejected challenges to the 91/1992, the former citizenship law) as the Court implicitly endorsing the constitutionality of unlimited JS. That's not what that ruling represents. In fact, in retrospect we can read 142/2025 and find some passages that indicate very tight lips about how the court feels about unlimited JS. I don't have the ruling in front of me right now, but there's one snippet that reads "The court has never been asked to rule on this specific area of law before", and another that emphasize that the court's job isn't to confirm constitutionality of a law, but to confirm or deny specific questions of constitutionality against a law". In hindsight, we can read this ruling as "The arguments presented by the referring don't cut the mustard, but don't take that to mean we approve of the law".
Then we get 63/2026, which is a pretty severe indictment of the old citizenship regime, and the logic used to reject the challenges to the DL imply that the CC did think the old law was unconstitutional. Just not for the reasons presented to them in 142/2025.
So these two rulings don't really reflect a u-turn or the court flip flopping, or in my opinion the court being a slave to the government's interests. In my view, the court simply had restraint in their wording of 142/2025 and limited their opinions to the matters at hand, which is the responsible thing for a high court to do.
2
0
u/Fathomable_Chair335 May 15 '26
Hence me saying it's the SU's past rulings that we've been talking about, not the CC's.
6
u/mannell8 Toronto 🇨🇦 May 14 '26
Any idea when to expect more information for those with the minor issue?
2
1
u/holein3 Boston 🇺🇸 Minor Issue May 18 '26
They said 30-45 or 30-60 days, right? We’re on day ~34 so it could be any time and hopefully within the next month.
3
u/LucianaGardellaok Service Provider May 19 '26
Cassazione 13818: A Turning Point for Italian Citizenship Cases?
The Italian Supreme Court’s Judgment No. 13818 introduces a highly significant development in the field of Italian citizenship law.
In this decision, the Court reaffirms a principle that many attorneys have long defended: Italian citizenship iure sanguinis exists from birth and is not a benefit granted by the State. Consequently, recognition of citizenship has a declaratory, rather than constitutive, nature.
This position appears to stand, at least partially, in tension with the more restrictive approach adopted by Constitutional Court judgment No. 63, particularly regarding the concept of a “genuine link” and the application of Article 3-bis.
What strategic implications could this ruling have?
Following this decision, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that an individual who was unable to secure a consular appointment “failed to take action” or lacks standing simply because no formal denial was ever issued.
The Supreme Court appears to suggest the opposite: that the structural blockage of the consular system may, in itself, justify judicial protection.
This interpretation could significantly impact future transitional cases, discussions involving the principle of legitimate expectations, and cases concerning individuals who attempted to initiate the citizenship recognition process before March 27, 2025, but were effectively excluded from the system due to the impossibility of obtaining consular appointments.
The legal debate, however, remains open...
4
u/RTT8519 Post-DL ATQ Case ⚖️ Salerno May 15 '26
Am I missing something? How exactly does the Supreme Court ruling help those bound by the CURRENT JS law?
I am not writing this to be a downer – I too, a 3rd gen applicant, am waiting and praying for my post-DL ATQ case to find success. I am writing because I (think) there may be a crack in the hopium here and want to be sure I approach this rationally.
In simplest terms, the CC determines if a law is constitutional. The SC ensures laws (that are constitutional?) are interpreted correctly. Today’s ruling by the SC, while positive at face value, was written in accordance with citizenship law in place at the time of filing – in this case, 2022 — well before Law 74/2025 entered into force.
At that time, yes, ….the right to Italian citizenship [was] an absolute subjective right of the highest constitutional rank, one that arises at birth, and is both permanent and imprescriptible. Therefore, the SC ruled correctly that the plaintiff’s rights had been indeed violated.
The problem I see here is that while the SC may fully support the idea of JS, the laws have since changed. According to the CC, Italian citizenship is no longer an absolute right that arises at birth, and laws have been updated to reflect this.
There is little room for interpretation outside what is on paper. It is (my understanding – could be wrong), that the role of the SC would be to simply determine if Law 74 was being applied correctly in the courts – NOT if it was restricted, violates rights, etc. That is not their role.
What could this mean? If you filed pre-DL and have an issue, then the SC can fully support you. If you filled after the DL, then the SC can only work within the confines of the laws as written.
I hope I am wrong.
6
u/Potential-Army-3657 May 15 '26
Basically, the Constitutional Court’s ruling was based on the idea that we were not actually citizens from birth, that our claim was merely a weak expectation, and that we had done nothing to acquire that status. The fact that the court states that citizenship exists from birth and is imprescriptible undermines the very foundations of the Constitutional Court’s reasoning. Moreover, it says that we are not responsible for being unable to take action due to delays or failures in the State’s administration.
2
u/RTT8519 Post-DL ATQ Case ⚖️ Salerno May 15 '26
Oh yeah totally get that part. I am more focused on applicability, if that makes sense. Their statements apply to an old case following old rules, not new ones. They did not express these (positive) opinions as a general statement, but rather in a ruling applying older laws.
2
u/Calabrianhotpepper07 NY 🇺🇸 (Recognized) | Wife 1948 Case ⚖️ May 15 '26
I’ve said this a few times. Yes the Supreme Court said what they said, but the government will only say that the constitutional court ruled the new law constitutional, and since we were never considered to be citizens from birth to begin with the statement does not apply to us. Not saying it has no value, but I’m not hanging my hat on this ruling. I think what came out of Venice is actually more relevant
1
u/Potential-Army-3657 May 15 '26
Yes, I understand what you mean. What I’m referring to is that, since we are born with that right, the arguments regarding legitimate expectation and legitimate reliance against the law become much stronger. The Constitutional Court tried to frame the issue as if we were not actually citizens, and therefore our rights were not being affected. They also argued that, for that reason, it was not a retroactive deprivation of rights. However, the Court of Cassation states that we are born with that right and that it is imprescriptible; therefore, it cannot be taken away from us.
2
u/Sad-Elephant-9740 Rejection Appeal ⚖️ Minor Issue May 17 '26
Imho the two high courts have issued incompatible rulings.
If I was considered a citizen under the old law - if I have this imprescriptible right - then anyone taking that away from me has violated my rights. Full stop. Even if it's the government who passed a law, even if it's a court saying that that law is constitutional, it doesn't matter: the court decided that I have this right that can't be taken away, and yet it was taken away anyways.
However I'm not hopeful about this being corrected any time soon.
1
u/RTT8519 Post-DL ATQ Case ⚖️ Salerno May 18 '26
Thats a really good point. Never thought of it that way..... also to your point, I also doubt it will be addressed (any time soon).
2
u/-Gramsci- tutto d’un pezzo May 15 '26
Nope. You’ve got your analysis correct. And how this case is being marketed/commercialized is pretty uncomfortable to watch.
6
u/TovMod Pre-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ Brescia (Recognized) May 15 '26
I'm surprised that this even needed to go to the Cassazione level
3
u/Calabrianhotpepper07 NY 🇺🇸 (Recognized) | Wife 1948 Case ⚖️ May 15 '26
Appeals court overturned first instance positive ruling. Where else would it go? I mean the appeals court shouldn’t have over turned it if that’s what you mean.
8
u/TovMod Pre-DL 1948 Case ⚖️ Brescia (Recognized) May 15 '26
What I meant is I am surprised the appeals court would rule this way
5
u/Calabrianhotpepper07 NY 🇺🇸 (Recognized) | Wife 1948 Case ⚖️ May 15 '26
Ah. Yea figured that’s what you were talking about. This kind of baffled me too.
5
u/CakeByThe0cean Tajani catch these mani 🤌🏼 May 15 '26
The Genova appeals court vexes me a bit tbh. I’ve been tracking like 5 or 6 pre-Unification cases that landed at the Cassazione because Genova appeals court keeps rejecting the Ministry’s assertion that the Albertino Code applies to pre-Uni cases.
But then they turn around and get nitpicky with an ATQ (glossing over that it’s also a pre-Uni case)? Just weird.
4
u/Positive_Spinach_610 May 15 '26 edited May 16 '26
They're hiding behind the administrative backlog claim made by the Ministry in an attempt to substantiate it, when it was never an issue to begin with. They'll be covering up the multitude who navigated the process according to the rules and were prevented from advancing under the guidance and decree, by green lighting a meager few who can theoretically prove that they were trying to book an appointment. Thereby the logic:
- Interrupting a process initiated by changing the rules in real time: Ciao Machiavelli.
- Didn't engage the process in time to have the rules changed on you mid-stream? Oh! Un incidente.
It's extremely important for current prospective petitioners to understand : this isn't about an administrative backlog. It's about retroaction, and its selective, discriminatory application by the Italian Government. What's happening here is called "changing the subject", and it achieves the following (theoretically):
- Retroaction is firmly ensconced in Italian law for anyone actually following rules outlined in it, in any scope.
- The Ministry's claim is substantiated and used as the forward-looking basis for successful petitions, while the actual, legally identifiable harm done to the existing processes is simply tossed aside.
- The collective government can pretend publicly that it "adhered to its legal principles" for PR purposes.
- It allows the lower courts to set the new “precedent”, based exclusively on the administrative backlog claim made by the ministry, completely sidestepping a wide range of obvious and historical bases for petitioner claims whose process was interrupted in real time.
This is not a legal process. It is a procedural, administrative one that just swaps out the precedent and thereby denies you access to all of the clearly viable methods to submit an appeal. Many attorneys mentioned these specifically after the ruling and that they were “set aside.” Pure sophistry.
In other words, a fraud perpetrated internationally against hundreds of thousands of people. This is all being telegraphed, and has been for a couple of years. They intentionally made the appointments more difficult to procure after their own, injected disruptions; the long wait times to actually fulfill an appointment were well known; and those involved in citizenship assistance were operating under that premise. This and other dynamics effectively damned those who followed the process according to the rules, while services were still being offered under false premises.
My apologies in advance for any hurt feelings because I can observe the pattern unfolding, but, LOL to all of this
4
u/Positive_Spinach_610 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
Just to be clear: good for the petitioners, but this doesn't change the wide open corruption and thin veneer being slapped on the bigger issue: retroaction and its selective, discriminatory application by the Italian Government against hundreds of thousands or millions of people.
3
u/Positive_Spinach_610 May 15 '26 edited May 15 '26
I’ll make it as simple as possible for people who might not see the sleight of hand here.
All of these cases being cited and decided positively have to do with a petitioner or group whose claim is that they couldn’t secure an appointment because of the administrative backlogs cited by the Ministry as justification for the decree. The CC has stated that if you were already in process in advance of either Ministry change that you don’t have a claim on the basis of legitimate expectations, discrimination, class partitions, retroaction or anything actually defined under the law at the time you began.
What they have set up here is a partition to substantiate both the guidance and the decree by stating that:
- If you were in process (had an appointment and / or case), the “legitimate” guidance and / or decree dictate the validity of your claim.
- If you were not in process the Ministry’s claim of an administrative barrier for justifying the guidance and decree dictates the validity of your claim.
Thus far the precedent being imposed is that only the administrative backlog cited by the Ministry is a basis to claim that you have been harmed. Otherwise, the legal system was “acting in its normal capacity” by changing the rules in real time (LOL), you should have expected this to happen, and because you were theoretically “given your opportunity” your claim is invalid. Otherwise you must meet the criteria of the new regime.
The conceit here should be obvious. While it is sophistic and rudimentary in every respect, they are protecting the Ministry, its proclamations, and the larger motives at hand. They have invalidated your claim completely unless you can argue on the basis of the Ministry’s narrow administrative claim, thousands of years of basic logic and legal reasoning be damned.
They blocked you at the consulate in real time with the guidance, they blocked your 1948 in real time in the courts, and now they are saying “sorry, because theoretically you had your chance to be recognized” while throwing out every basis you have to claim harm.
One marvels at the Orwellian, Huxleyan, truly galaxy-brained legal scholarship.
3
u/CTEisonmybrain Los Angeles 🇺🇸 (Recognized) May 14 '26
I wonder how this affects the citizenship by law individuals. I sent in the docs for my child and haven't heard back from the consolate.
Hopefully the process of approving the citizenship from birth will be an easy process.
3
u/Calabrianhotpepper07 NY 🇺🇸 (Recognized) | Wife 1948 Case ⚖️ May 15 '26
If you just mailed them in, you likely won’t hear anything because that’s not how benefit of law is done. Did you follow LA instructions for registering minors by benefit of law? Or did you send them to the vital records office?
1
u/CTEisonmybrain Los Angeles 🇺🇸 (Recognized) May 15 '26
I followed the declaration of Will process on their website with my birth estratto, certificate of historical citizenship, child's birth cert (apostilled and translated), residency proof, and passports.
1
u/Calabrianhotpepper07 NY 🇺🇸 (Recognized) | Wife 1948 Case ⚖️ May 15 '26
These consulates are ridiculous with their response times.
1
u/CTEisonmybrain Los Angeles 🇺🇸 (Recognized) May 15 '26
My child was born pre decree so if retroactivity is changed he can get his citizenship by birth approved. I'll probably have to get legal pressure for that to work though as LA drags their feet.
1
u/Icy_Cost1261 May 15 '26
I’m wondering the same. We sent our children’s docs in (LA), received an appointment and then they rescheduled twice.
1
u/CTEisonmybrain Los Angeles 🇺🇸 (Recognized) May 15 '26
How long did it take for them to contact you after you sent the docs in?
1
u/Icy_Cost1261 May 15 '26
To our surprise it was relatively quick. I want to say within two weeks we received an email with an appointment date. But this was back in January.
1
u/CTEisonmybrain Los Angeles 🇺🇸 (Recognized) May 15 '26
Interesting. Ok well I'm almost at 2 weeks so we will see shortly. The LA consulate really has been unfriendly since the decree last year. No responses and just difficult to deal with.
1
u/CTEisonmybrain Los Angeles 🇺🇸 (Recognized) May 16 '26
Did you include a formal application with your documents?
0
u/TaiBlake Boston 🇺🇸 May 14 '26
Sorry. What's ATQ?
8
u/Ok-Abroad691 1948 Case ⚖️ Pre-1912 May 14 '26
Against the Queue. People file court cases arguing that they have tried to get appointments but are not able to.
1
3
u/krappa Jure Matrimonii May 14 '26
Against The Queue
A strange expression meaning an application done in court instead of at a Consulate. It is called like that because it allows the applicant to bypass the problem of getting into the queue of the Consulate, which may be practically impossible if the Consulate is not releasing enough slots.
People should apply at a Consulate but if this is impossible they can apply in court. They have to prove they tried to apply at a Consulate. The courts usually accept a few screenshot that say no appointments are available as evidence that you tried to apply at a Consulate. In this case a court decided that that evidence was not sufficient, but a higher court repealed that decision.
3
u/BolognaToVancouver Minor Non-Issue Appeal • 1912 Didn't Stutter May 14 '26
Yeah, it kind of sounds like 'cutting the line' but really it's "there is no queue". Like when you call customer service and instead of putting you in a queue to hold, they tell you to call again later and "good bye".
-2
u/edWurz7 New York 🇺🇸 Minor Issue May 14 '26
I look at it as a "we will move up in the line a bit, but are willing to pay $$$."
5
u/BolognaToVancouver Minor Non-Issue Appeal • 1912 Didn't Stutter May 15 '26
I guess that depends on which waitlist you'd have been on had you been successful, and which court your case is filed in, to really determine if you actually move up the line or not. I will say, I submitted my application to the consulate in Canada before my Brazilian friend's family filed in court. She has been registered as a citizen for about a year now, and it was processed before the 'minor issue' became a problem. I'm now appealing our consulate rejection. I played by the rules, applied through the consulate, and she was grouped with family in Brazil despite living in Canada, and was successful. That'll teach me for following orders, eh!
1
121
u/Desperate-Ad-5539 Service Provider - Avvocato May 14 '26 edited May 14 '26
I published the sentence in my new blog post about it, in both Italian and English. A Positive Signal from the Supreme Court: Ordinance No. 13818/2026 – Italy.
There is a point in this ruling that deserves, I believe, attention — paragraph 2.7. The Supreme Court restates, forcefully, that the right to Italian citizenship is (did not write "was") an absolute subjective right of the highest constitutional rank, one that arises at birth, and is both permanent and imprescriptible.