Thank you to everyone who joined our Open Office session on the recent Constitutional Court decision, 63/2026, and to those who submitted questions in advance.

Because the conversation was detailed, technical, and specific to a rapidly changing legal landscape, we are not sending the full recording as a public replay. Instead, we have pulled together the main questions we received and summarized the practical answers from the session with Avv. Alberto Lama.

The central takeaway is simple:

The recent decision is serious. It is not the whole story.

The path to Italian citizenship by descent has become more limited, more technical, and more dependent on the exact facts of each case. But it is not accurate to say that every case is finished, or that everyone should give up.

During the session, Avv. Lama emphasized that individual assessment is now essential. Lower courts, appellate courts, the Court of Cassation, and future Constitutional Court hearings may still shape how the new rules are applied.

If your facts are close to one of these questions, that is exactly the point: your next step should be a proper review, not a guess from social media.

This FAQ is general information only and is not legal advice for any individual case. If your facts are close to one of these questions, that is exactly the point: your next step should be a proper review, not a guess from social media.

FAQ: Italian Citizenship After the Constitutional Court Decision

1. Did the Constitutional Court decision end all citizenship by descent cases?

No.

It made the landscape more difficult, but it did not end every possible path.Avv. Lama described the decision as legally weak and politically influenced, but also explained that the Court’s ruling on retroactivity was unfavorable. The Court accepted the government’s position that the new restrictions could be applied to limit recognitions involving more distant lineage and applicants with what the government views as a weaker “genuine link” to Italy.That said, the decision does not automatically answer every factual scenario. There are still open questions about exceptions, 1948 cases, proof that a process had already begun, the minor issue, and how ordinary courts and appellate courts will apply these concepts in actual cases.

The practical answer:
Do not assume your case is alive. Do not assume it is dead. It needs to be assessed.

2. Is the new law retroactive?

The Constitutional Court rejected the retroactivity argument in the Torino case, meaning it did not find the decree unconstitutional on that basis in that case. However, that does not mean every possible retroactivity argument is finished.Part of the issue is that the Torino case had unusual facts. It was filed on March 28, 2025, right as the decree was being published and before it formally came into force the following day. Avv. Lama explained that this created complications around whether the new law even applied to that specific case and made it a weaker vehicle for the broader legal challenge.The Court of Cassation may still play an important role because it is the court that interprets the law, while the Constitutional Court looks more narrowly at whether a specific provision violates the Constitution.

The practical answer:
Retroactivity took a significant hit, but the legal landscape is still developing. For people who were already in process, the question becomes: what can you prove, when did it happen, and which legal route were you pursuing?

3. What does “having started” or “initiated” the citizenship process mean?

This is one of the biggest open questions.The law refers to certain protections for people who had already filed or initiated a recognition procedure before the cutoff.

But the practical question is: 

What counts?During the session, Avv. Lama explained that some courts have recognized attempts to file administratively through Prenot@mi when no appointments were available as legally meaningful. In other words, in some cases, proof that someone tried to access the consular route may matter.For 1948 cases, the issue is harder because those applicants were never supposed to go through the consulate. They could not prove failed consular booking attempts in the same way. For those cases, Avv. Lama said that evidence such as vital record requests, birth certificates, USCIS requests, CONEs, and other document-gathering steps may be a legally sound argument, but there is not yet enough case law to know how judges will treat it.

The practical answer:
Possible proof may include Prenot@mi screenshots, waitlist emails, consular correspondence, attorney engagement, document requests, vital records, USCIS/CONE requests, apostilles, translations, and other dated evidence showing that the process had begun. But no one can promise yet that a judge will accept any particular category of proof.

4. I joined a consular waitlist before March 27, 2025. Does that help?

It may help, but it is not guaranteed.Several people asked whether a pre-March 27, 2025 waitlist position, such as a DC Embassy waitlist email, could carry legal significance.

Based on the discussion, this may fall into the same category as other proof that someone was actively attempting to access the administrative process before the cutoff. Some courts have accepted attempts to file administratively when appointments were unavailable, but there is not yet a uniform rule across all courts.

The practical answer:
Save everything. Do not delete waitlist emails, Prenot@mi screenshots, consular responses, timestamps, or notices showing your place in line. Whether it is enough depends on the full case and the court.

5. What about 1948 cases?

1948 cases remain one of the most important open categories.

A 1948 case is already different because it is a judicial route, not a consular appointment route. Several people asked whether gathering documents before the decree could show that they had started the process, even if they had not yet filed.

Avv. Lama said that this argument is not far-fetched and legally makes sense, especially where applicants can show serious document collection before the law changed. But he also emphasized that we do not yet have enough case history to say with certainty how judges will treat those facts.

The June 9 Constitutional Court hearing is especially relevant because two of the cases from Campobasso involve pre-1948 cases filed after the decree. Those referrals reportedly raise broader questions than the Torino case, including whether the government could use an urgent decree law to change citizenship law in this way.

The practical answer:
There is still hope for some 1948 cases, but the strength of the case now depends heavily on the documents, dates, lineage, naturalization facts, and legal arguments available.

6. Does everything now hinge on the June 9 hearing?

No, but June 9 matters.

The June 9 hearing is important because it involves different cases and broader questions than the Torino case. Avv. Lama explained that the June hearing includes two Campobasso cases and one Mantova case. The Mantova case focuses mainly on minors’ rights, while the Campobasso cases involve pre-1948 cases filed after the decree.

But June 9 is not the only thing that matters. The Court of Cassation is also expected to address the minor issue and may speak to the timing and retroactive application of the new law. Lower courts and appellate courts will also continue shaping how these rules apply in real cases.

The practical answer:
June 9 may be important, but it is not the only legal development to watch. Anyone with a potentially viable case should be preparing, documenting, and assessing strategy rather than waiting passively.

7. What is the “minor issue,” and is it still alive?

The minor issue concerns cases where an Italian parent naturalized while the next person in the line was still a minor.

For example, several people asked versions of this question:

“My mother was born to Italian parents, but her parent naturalized when she was under 18. Does that cancel the line?”

During the session, Avv. Lama explained that he read part of the Constitutional Court decision as supporting the older interpretation: that a child who acquired another citizenship involuntarily as a minor did not automatically lose Italian citizenship. He also noted that the Court of Cassation heard the minor issue on April 14 and may resolve it directly or refer part of the issue back to the Constitutional Court.

The practical answer:
The minor issue is not settled. If your line depends on a parent naturalizing while the next person in the line was a minor, you need a case-specific review. This is not a category where broad online answers are reliable.

8. What are the new generational limits?

Under the new rules, the basic framework has narrowed significantly. The current public consular guidance states that citizenship by descent is generally limited to transmission from a parent or grandparent, with additional requirements around whether the transmitting parent or grandparent had exclusively Italian citizenship, or whether a citizen parent had lived in Italy for at least two continuous years before the applicant’s birth or adoption. 

During the Open Office, Avv. Lama also explained that the two-generation limit appears to have been chosen for political and practical reasons because it cuts off a large number of claims through more distant ancestors.

The practical answer:
Parent and grandparent cases may still be possible, but the naturalization history matters. Great-grandparent and more distant cases are much more difficult under the new structure unless an exception applies.

9. What if all four grandparents were Italian, my family is culturally Italian, and I have been to Italy many times?

Those facts may matter emotionally, and they may matter in how a person thinks about relocation, identity, and long-term planning. But the new citizenship rules are not based on a general cultural test.

The government’s stated concern has been lineage distance and a “genuine link” to Italy, but the legal requirements still turn on specific statutory categories: the line, the generation, naturalization, dates, residence, and the type of application.

The practical answer:
Being raised with Italian culture does not replace the legal requirements. But if Italy is truly part of your future, citizenship may not be the only strategy. A visa or residency pathway may be the bridge.

10. What if my grandparent was born in Italy and moved abroad? Is a second-generation case still impacted?

Possibly, but not always negatively.

A grandparent-born-in-Italy case may still be within the two-generation framework, but the facts matter. The naturalization history is now especially important. If the Italian-born grandparent naturalized, when they naturalized, whether they were “only Italian” at the relevant time, and whether another exception applies may all affect the analysis.

The practical answer:
A grandparent case should not be dismissed without review. It may be stronger than a great-grandparent case, but it still needs a close look at naturalization and timing.

11. What about minor children of people already recognized as Italian citizens?

This was one of the most important practical questions.

Avv. Lama explained that minor children of recognized Italian citizens may be registered through the competent consulate under a benefit or concession of law. However, this is different from ordinary jure sanguinis citizenship by birth. The distinction matters because this type of citizenship may not be transmissible to the next generation in the same way.

Public consular guidance now also refers to limited cases where minor children born abroad to a citizen parent who does not automatically transmit citizenship may acquire citizenship by “benefit of law,” including specific declaration requirements and deadlines. 

The practical answer:
If you are already recognized and have minor children, do not assume the old automatic process still applies in the same way. This should be handled promptly and carefully through the correct consular or civil-status channel.

12. What about children born after the decree or after the conversion law?

This remains one of the most painful and unsettled areas.

Questions came in from families with children or grandchildren born in 2025, including children born after the emergency decree but around or before later conversion dates. These cases are highly fact-specific.

During the session, Avv. Lama explained that the situation for unborn children or future children of recognized citizens remains unclear, especially after the later transition dates. He said there may be some opening for minors, but the extent of that opening remains to be seen.

The practical answer:
If a child’s application has already been submitted to a consulate or comune, keep all proof of filing, transmission, and correspondence. Follow up in writing, use a PEC. Do not rely on verbal updates only. These cases should be reviewed individually because the child’s date of birth, the parent’s citizenship status, the parent’s route to recognition, and the filing date may all matter.

13. My spouse and I were recognized before the law changed. Our adult child was waiting for an appointment. What path does an adult child have now?

Adult children are in a different position from minor children.

The benefit-of-law provisions discussed for minor children do not simply solve adult child cases. If the adult child did not already have a protected appointment or filing before the cutoff, their path may now depend on whether they independently satisfy the new rules or whether another legal argument applies.

The practical answer:
Adult children of recognized citizens should have their own eligibility reviewed. The parent’s recognition may be relevant, but it does not automatically guarantee the adult child’s recognition under the new framework.

14. Does buying property in Italy help or speed up citizenship?No.

Buying a home in Italy does not create citizenship and does not, by itself, create legal residency. It also does not expedite a citizenship-by-descent case.

This came up because many people see Americans buying property in Italy and assume property ownership is a back door into citizenship or residence. It is not.

The practical answer:
Property can be part of a relocation plan, but it is not an immigration strategy by itself. You still need a lawful basis to live in Italy beyond the short-stay period.

15. If I come to Italy to look at property or explore a move, how long can I stay?

For most non-EU visitors, the Schengen short-stay rule is generally 90 days in any 180-day period. The European Commission’s short-stay calculator is built around this rule and explains that travelers must count back 180 days from each day of stay to make sure they do not exceed 90 days. 

A long-stay visa or residence permit is different. If someone wants to live in Italy, work remotely, retire, study, or spend extended time in the country, they need to identify the correct visa or residence strategy before they overstay or make commitments that do not match their legal status.

The practical answer:
A scouting trip is useful. A pretend relocation is risky. If you are coming to Italy or Spain to explore property, citizenship, or residency, plan the legal route before the trip turns into a move.

16. Could a digital nomad or remote worker visa be an option?

Possibly.

For Italy, the official consular guidance describes the Digital Nomad / Remote Worker Visa as intended for non-EU citizens who plan to work remotely while living in Italy, with the visa aimed at highly specialized workers and divided between freelancers/independent specialists and remote employees. 

This is separate from citizenship. It may be useful for someone whose citizenship case is delayed, blocked, uncertain, or no longer the right first step.

The practical answer:
If your real goal is to live in Italy or Spain, citizenship may not be the only path. A visa strategy may give you a lawful way to move while the citizenship landscape continues to develop.

17. What if I am several years out and just gathering information?

This is still the right time to get oriented.

The people most at risk are often not those already in the process. They are the ones quietly collecting documents, watching social media, assuming the old rules still apply, or planning a property purchase before they understand their legal route.

The practical answer:
If you are early, use that time well. Identify whether citizenship is still realistic, whether documents should continue, whether a visa strategy is more practical, and whether your timeline should change.

18. What if ViaMonde already has my papers or application?

If you are already a ViaMonde client, we have reviewed your file based on your actual documents, dates, lineage, and procedural posture.

During the session, we explained that legal teams are prioritizing cases with near-term hearings and identifying which files need immediate action, which need revised arguments, and which may need to be slowed down while the legal landscape develops.

The practical answer:
If we need something from you, we will contact you. If you have a pending question about your specific case status or your facts have changed, please email the team directly rather than relying on a public FAQ. Our document team has been reviewing cases with the legal team and reaching out to clients whose cases need further consideration immediately. 

19. I am ready to pull the trigger. Is this the right time, or is it too late?

It depends.

For some families, it may still be worth moving forward. For others, the better next step may be document review, waiting for a court development, choosing a different line, or shifting focus to a visa/residency strategy.

What is no longer advisable is moving forward blindly because the process used to be easier.

The practical answer:
This is the right time for a serious assessment. It may or may not be the right time to file.

20. Will all citizenship applications be moved to Rome? How many will be accepted?

During the session, Avv. Lama explained that the formal change currently enacted concerns consular cases: beginning in 2029, those cases are expected to be managed by the central authority in Rome, with consulates having a finite number of cases they can refer. He also noted that some consulates are already dealing with quota-style limits and that the timeline has been extended from two years to three, with further changes expected when the central authority system begins.

The practical answer:
The process is becoming slower, more centralized, and more limited. That is another reason not to wait until the last minute.

Final Takeaway

If you remember only one thing from the session, let it be this:

The decision changed the strategy. It did not create one answer for every family.

Some cases may still be viable. Some may need to wait. Some may need new legal arguments. Some may no longer be practical. And for many people, the right question may no longer be only, “Can I get Italian citizenship?” but also:

What is the safest legal path for me to live in Italy or Spain?

If your citizenship path now feels blocked, uncertain, delayed, or too risky, we recommend a private assessment. ViaMonde can help review the citizenship line, evaluate timing and risk, and consider whether a visa or residency strategy may be the better bridge.