A big thank you to everyone who brought this to the sub's attention this morning! We officially have a 3rd referral to the Corte Costituzionale about DL36/L74 ("DL"), sent over by judge Carissimi at Campobasso.

Details are very limited at this time, but here's the long and short of it:

Background

• Filed on August 26, 2025, so after L74 was passed in May.
• The plaintiffs are two [adult] Brazilian women descended from a male ancestor born in 1881
  • It's unknown how they're related to their ancestor, but they're likely 3rd or 4th generation (because math).
  • It's also unknown if this is a 1948 case or an ATQ case.
• The avvocato on the case is Avv. Licia Celi, a partner at Studio Legale ACP. Capasso Cidadania, a turnkey service provider, contracts their legal services through Studio Legale ACP.
• This challenge is supported by:
  • Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution: a violation of the principles of equality, reasonableness, proportionality and protection of legitimate trust (legitimate trust) is alleged, by affecting rights acquired by birth that have a permanent and imprescriptible nature.
  • Article 22 of the Constitution: the court considers that the rule implies a deprivation of citizenship for "political reasons", understood as discretionary decisions of the legislator based on demographic or security policies, which is prohibited with respect to citizens who already have the status iure sanguinis.
  • Articles 72(4) and 77 of the Constitution: the use of the decree-law (emergency legislation) to regulate a matter that should be subject to formal law reservation and ordinary parliamentary debate is questioned, in addition to pointing out the absence of the assumptions of "extraordinary need and urgency."
  • Article 117(1) of the Constitution: in relation to international and European Union obligations, specifically by the impact on European citizenship regulated in Article 9 of the TEU (Treaty on European Union) and Article 20 of the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union).
  • The Court (Campobasso) holds that the law introduces an implicit and automatic revocation of a citizenship status already acquired at birth, without offering individual guarantees or an adequate transitional regime.

How is this different than the other two referrals?

• Campobasso (this case)
  • It's along the same lines as the previous two referrals, but it deepens the legal motivation by arguing that the new regime post-DL does not represent a mere procedural change, being able to configure, in practice, a retroactive revocation of a right already acquired by the descendants born before the reform.
  • Pre-DL, the descendants who demonstrated an uninterrupted line of transmission were citizens from birth, the judicial judgment being merely declarative. The new rule, by preventing the subsequent recognition of this status, would produce effects equivalent to an automatic ex tunc loss of citizenship, a hypothesis that raises relevant doubts about constitutionality.
• Torino (see here)
  • Filed on March 28, 2025, the day DL36 was announced and took effect*
  • Plaintiffs are 3rd generation descendants from a male ancestor born in 1837 who died sometime after the Unification in 1865
  • This is a 1948 case (GGF-GM-M-Plaintiffs).
  • The avvocati on the case are Avv. Alfonso Celotto, Avv. Giovanni Bonato, Avv. Giovanni Caridi, and Avv. Riccardo De Simone, almost all of whom are members of AGIS.
  • This challenge is specifically about the DL being retroactive and is supported by Articles 2, 3, and 117(1) of the Constitution (see above).
• Mantova (see here
  • Filed on
  • The avvocati on the case are Avv. Alfonso Celotto and Avv. Maria Stella La Malfa.
  • This is about beneficio di legge citizenship for minors. The parents were recognized via court case on April 11, 2025 and are challenging that their minor child should also be recognized as an Italian citizen from birth.
  • This challenge is supported by Articles 1(2), 2, 3, 22, 24, 56, 58, 72(4), 77, and 117(1)
    • Article 24: Access to judicial protection of the subjective right to citizenship for a person who has already acquired Italian citizenship ab origine jure sanguinis. The DL has no transition period - it fails to set a reasonable deadline, after the entry into force, to allow those who are interested to apply (administratively or judicially) for JS recognition.
    • Articles 1(2), 58, and 75: popular sovereignty (Art 1(2)) and citizens' right to vote. Italian citizenship is an essential prerequisite for [...] the right to vote for the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate (Articles 56 and 58).

What does this all mean?

Well, it's a good thing that we have another referral with a different angle to support the overall constitutional questionability of multiple aspects of the DL. The bad news is that this could delay the March 11 hearing since it's coming in at the 11th hour like this.

That being said, the Mantova case still hasn't been officially included within this hearing either, so there's also the possibility that the March 11 hearing will proceed with just the Torino referral while the hearing(s) for the Mantova and Campobasso referrals will come later.

Sources:

• InfoCivitano
• Capasso Cidadania FB page
• Capasso Cidadania Instagram
• Studio Legale ACP Instagram
• Insieme