Overview of Decree-Law no. 36/2025 (Decreto-Legge 28 marzo 2025, n. 36)
As many of you are aware, on March 28, 2025, the Italian government enacted a significant amendment to its citizenship laws through an emergency decree-law. This extraordinary legislative instrument bypassed parliamentary debate.
Known as the Tajani decree-law, named after the minister who drafted it, the measure was signed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, several cabinet ministers, and the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella. Published in the official law journal the same day, it became effective immediately.
Under Article 77 of the Italian Constitution, such a decree-law remains valid for 60 days and must be ratified by Parliament to become permanent. If not converted into law, it will be retroactively nullified.
In a brief but sweeping half-page text, the decree-law drastically modifies, and introduces severe restrictions to, long-standing citizenship principles. Though it explicitly safeguards citizenship applications to courts, consulates or municipalities filed by midnight on March 27, 2025 (which will continue to be processed under the previous legal framework), the new provisions apply to all applications submitted from March 28, 2025 onward.
Citizenship transmission is now restricted to two generations and only under specific conditions: either the parent must have resided in Italy for at least two years, or the grandparent must have been born in Italy. As a result, second-generation descendants will not be able to pass Italian citizenship on to their children, leading to the gradual disappearance of Italian lineage among expatriate communities.
In addition to the changes introduced by the decree-law on citizenship eligibility, Minister Tajani also briefly introduced other major reforms to the application process during his press conference. Among them, the most significant is the planned centralization of all citizenship applications. While this may seem like a positive step toward efficiency, the centralized office does not yet exist and will likely take years to become operational. In the meantime, some consulates have already shut down their booking systems without warning, leaving applicants in limbo.
Legislative and Constitutional Context
Attorney Mellone has characterized the decree-law as having a “short and irrelevant life”, and I strongly concur.
Yes, a government can bypass the standard democratic process. The Italian Constitution permits such action in Article 77, but only in emergencies. The Constitution also mandates parliamentary conversion within 60 days.
The decree-law’s preamble attempts to justify such urgency, and to date, no other state authority has raised objections. President Mattarella signed the decree-law without expressing concern, and Parliament is unlikely to challenge it given the government’s majority in both chambers.
Thus, no institutional resistance is expected—except from the judiciary, which I will address shortly. The decree-law will likely be ratified with minimal modifications.
Why Minister Tajani enacted this decree-law rather than wait for the Constitutional Court’s scheduled review of the citizenship laws, remains a puzzling question.
It is unlikely that the Court would have amended citizenship laws; rather, it was expected to issue guidelines outlining the principles that any revised citizenship legislation should follow.
It is possible Tajani anticipated that the Court’s ruling would complicate his reform efforts. Had he been confident in the Court’s backing, he would have waited to benefit from the legitimacy of its ruling. Instead, his decree-law now faces constitutional scrutiny in every courtroom.
Judicial Challenges and Legal Remedies
The government’s urgency was likely driven by a desire to implement the decree-law by May 28, 2025—well before the Constitutional Court hearing. By circumventing parliamentary and judicial review, the government has produced a constitutionally suspect decree-law.
Socrates accepted a death sentence from Athens because he believed the law was above individual will. That principle still holds. Legal systems have self-protecting principles that cannot be undone by temporary power.
In Italy, any judge has the authority to refer a law to the Constitutional Court for review, ensuring the protection of the entire legal system. However, for a case to reach the Constitutional Court, the law must first be challenged before an ordinary judge, who may then refer the issue to the Court if the contrast with the Constitution is deemed relevant.
The Path Forward
The more cases brought before civil courts that raise the conflict between birthright citizenship (iure sanguinis) and the Tajani decree-law—which effectively revokes it unless it was claimed by March 27, 2025, the greater the likelihood that a judge will refer the matter to the Constitutional Court.
The Constitutional Court will undoubtedly assess whether retroactive limitations on citizenship rights are lawful. While non-retroactivity is not explicitly preserved in the Constitution, it is a deeply rooted legal principle reaffirmed in Constitutional Court rulings since 2012. A 2024 Court note reaffirmed non-retroactivity as a “foundational value of the judicial civilization.”
However, due to judicial backlogs, significant legal challenges may not emerge before early 2026. A final ruling is unlikely before late 2026.
Looking ahead, we identify four major milestones – and windows of opportunity – in the legal and constitutional effort to protect the rights of Italian descendants:
- The Conversion Law – In the coming weeks, Parliament will consider the conversion of Decree-Law No. 36 into ordinary legislation. During this process, the text may be amended, potentially extending deadlines or modifying provisions affecting eligibility.
- The Constitutional Court’s Decision on Related Citizenship Matters – Expected in the second half of 2025, this decision will address constitutional issues raised in previous citizenship laws. It may provide interpretative guidance and establish legal principles that were not considered in the current decree-law.
- Constitutional Review of Decree-Law No. 36 – If a judge raises a formal question of constitutionality, the Court may assess the compatibility of the decree-law with the Italian Constitution and with overarching legal principles of the European and international legal systems. Such a review is not expected before mid-2026 at the earliest.
- Potential Evaluation under ECHR Standards – If the Constitutional Court fails to adequately address principles established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)—such as the requirement that any restriction of rights be preceded by a reasonable transitional period and that rights believed to be acquired must be treated fairly—further legal challenges may follow at the European level. This development would likely occur no earlier than 2027.
Our Recommendation: Move Forward With Your Case
A petitioner acting now, in this early stage of the decree-law—while serious institutional and public debate continues over the legitimacy of such an abrupt and overnight change to citizenship law—may be better positioned to benefit from the milestones set out.
Firstly, Parliament may choose to extend the initial deadline to the date of the law’s conversion, allowing petitioners already on record to fall within the expanded timeline. Secondly, should the government amend the law in response to the upcoming Constitutional Court ruling, any new provisions would not apply retroactively. Thirdly, if your case has been filed, a decision by the Constitutional Court deems the decree-law unconstitutional, would immediately and directly impact your case.
Therefore, if you are unsure whether to move forward and file your case, now is the time to fight for your rights.
Yes, there are risks: delays, unfavorable rulings, and financial burdens. But doing so is the only way to protect your rights and history shows that legal battles yield progress. Without prior generations pursuing the ‘1948 cases’, thousands would have been denied citizenship. The battle went all the way to the Court of Cassation several times without success. In 2009, the Court finally ruled in favor of equality: women could pass citizenship to their children.
Our firm’s position remains firm: this abrupt change to citizenship law is, in our view, constitutionally illegitimate. Whether you apply now or later, we believe that all individuals who were born before a constitutionally valid reform should retain the right to claim Italian citizenship iure sanguinis. Our legal strategy—immediate or long-term—rests on this foundational principle.