A new ruling from Italy’s Court of Cassation has pushed the debate over iure sanguinis citizenship back into the spotlight. Published on May 12, the decision states that Italian citizenship is an absolute, permanent and imprescriptible subjective right that exists with the individual and does not depend on any constitutive administrative act. In practical terms, the court said that preventing a descendant from even filing an application can amount to denying recognition itself.
The case involved descendants of an Italian citizen who emigrated to Colombia and later had their bid for dual citizenship denied. While the ruling addresses that specific dispute, its reasoning reaches far beyond one family and has renewed attention among descendants who faced consular backlogs, suspended appointments and years of administrative paralysis.
What the ruling says
At the heart of the decision is a principle with broad implications: citizenship does not arise from a government grant, but from the holder’s legal status. That is why the court held that public administration cannot create a procedural barrier and then use that same barrier to argue that judicial protection should be unavailable.
“O direito à cidadania é um direito subjetivo absoluto, permanente e imprescritível, que nasce com o titular e não depende de qualquer ato administrativo constitutivo. Impedir o cidadão de sequer protocolar o seu pedido equivale, na prática, a negar o reconhecimento. Não pode ser que a Administração, ao criar o bloqueio, se beneficie dele como argumento para negar a tutela jurisdicional.”
The wording is being treated as a landmark because it adds a new chapter to the legal debate around citizenship by descent. For Brazilian descendants of Italians, its relevance is especially strong among those who do not meet the requirements of the new law but had already shown concrete interest in seeking recognition before running into consular inefficiency.
The material notes that waiting lines at some consulates could stretch for as long as 15 years, including at the São Paulo consulate. Against that backdrop, the inability to even start the administrative process became more than a bureaucratic inconvenience. It turned into a real obstacle to exercising a right that, according to the court, exists independently of a formal filing mechanism.
Why it matters after the new law
David Manzini, CEO and founder of Nostrali Cidadania Italiana, says the ruling gains even more weight when read alongside a recent decision from Italy’s Constitutional Court. In his view, the two decisions together create a strategically important interpretive opening for people who, before March 28, 2025, tried in concrete terms to begin the recognition process but were blocked by consular inaction, collapse or tacit refusal.
“Lida em conjunto com uma sentença recente da Corte Constitucional, a decisão abre uma janela interpretativa de importância estratégica para quem, antes de 28 de Março de 2025 (data da entrada em vigor da nova lei de cidadania), tentou concretamente dar início ao processo de reconhecimento da cidadania italiana, mas foi impedido pela inércia, pelo colapso ou pela recusa tácita dos consulados.”
That interpretation shifts the focus away from a formal protocol number and toward the applicant’s actual effort to exercise the right. In other words, failing to secure a final appointment or an official filing receipt would not automatically erase a claim if there is evidence that the person genuinely tried to move forward and was blocked by circumstances beyond their control.
Appointment attempts may become key evidence
According to Manzini, the Court of Cassation made clear that people who were prevented by the consular system itself from even filing an application retain a full and legitimate interest in pursuing recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis through the courts.
That gives potential relevance to documents such as emails, system access records, screenshots and official embassy notices about suspended bookings. Manzini says the court’s reasoning makes clear that proof in this context does not require a formal administrative protocol. Instead, what matters is demonstrating that the applicant effectively sought recognition and was prevented from proceeding for reasons outside their own will.
“A Corte de Cassação deixa claro que a prova, nesse contexto, não exige apresentação de um protocolo administrativo formal, mas sim a comprovação de que o requerente efetivamente buscou pelo reconhecimento e foi impedido por circunstâncias alheias à sua vontade.”
The Constitutional Court connection
The latest ruling from the First Civil Section follows a path that, according to Manzini, had already been opened by a recent Constitutional Court decision. That earlier ruling upheld the constitutionality of the reform, but it also left two major issues unresolved for descendants caught in an uncertain legal space.
One of those issues is the distinction between people who secured a consular appointment by 11:59 p.m. on March 27, 2025, and those who had already started pursuing recognition but did not receive an appointment in time. This is where the new Court of Cassation ruling may prove strategically important, because it reinforces the argument that an administrative blockade should not wipe out the claim of someone who had already tried to begin the process.
“A Corte Constitucional confirmou a validade constitucional da reforma. Mas deixou expressamente duas questões em aberto. Uma é a diferenciação entre quem recebeu o agendamento consular até às 23h59 do dia 27 de Março de 2025 e aqueles que iniciaram a busca pelo direito, mas não chegaram a receber o agendamento naquele prazo.”
What comes next
The legal picture around Italian citizenship remains unsettled. The Court of Cassation is expected to publish another ruling soon in a case examined by its Sezioni Unite, its most authoritative formation. Manzini explains that the court is responsible for defining how laws should be interpreted and applied by Italian courts, with the goal of ensuring uniformity, which means its decisions directly shape the course of ongoing litigation.
The ruling published on May 12 came from the First Civil Section, not the Sezioni Unite. Because of that, it does not carry the same weight as a decision expected to guide all ordinary judges. Even so, Manzini argues that the legal principle established in the decision is solid and well grounded, and may serve as an early signal of the court’s broader orientation before a more binding pronouncement arrives.
“Mas, o princípio de direito estabelecido é sólido e bem fundamentado. Além disso, pode sinalizar uma tendência, um termômetro da orientação da Corte, antes da pronúncia mais ampla e vinculante que as Sezioni Unite deverão proferir.”
Another key date is already on the calendar. On June 9, the Constitutional Court is set to meet again to analyze challenges to the constitutionality of the new law, based on a first-instance case referred by the Court of Campobasso. According to Manzini, that judgment may place before the court a question left open in an April hearing: the situation of people who began the process but never obtained an appointment.
If that happens, the case could directly affect a category of applicants still living in a legal gray zone. The eventual reach of that decision remains undefined, but the release points to the hearing as potentially decisive for descendants who tried to act before the legal change and were stopped by failures within the consular system.
Event Info
- Nostrali Cidadania taliana
- (54) 3533–4740
- @nostralicidadaniaitaliana
- www.nostrali.com.br
Gostou do nosso conteúdo?
Seu apoio faz toda a diferença para continuarmos produzindo material de qualidade! Se você apreciou o post, deixe seu comentário, compartilhe com seus amigos. Sua ajuda é fundamental para que possamos seguir em frente! 😊
