Crossing the San Giorgio Bridge at night feels like stepping into the painted dimension of a masterpiece: the outlines of the buildings reflected in the water, the soft lights, and the silence enveloping the city of the noble Gonzaga family.

The second request for constitutional review of the new citizenship law, the so-called “Tajani Law,” arises from a ruling by the Court of Mantua on October 24, 2025.

The matter was approached in an innovative way compared to the usual procedure adopted in citizenship recognition cases.

Instead of waiting for a scheduled hearing — which, as is known, can take months — the decision was made to provoke a judicial response directly, based on a specific ad hoc case designed to raise the constitutional issue.

The appellants filed an appeal under Article 95 of Presidential Decree 396/2000, following the refusal of the Civil Registry officer of the municipality of Canneto sull’Oglio to transcribe the birth certificate of a minor child of a “new” Italian citizen iure sanguinis (by descent), born and residing abroad, whose citizenship had been recognized by a Brescia Court ruling in April 2025.

The collegiate court of Mantua upheld the claims of unconstitutionality in an extensive and well-reasoned judgment, whose most relevant points are summarized below.

The legal analysis of the case is based on a fundamental principle:
A new law should not have the power to retroactively affect a previously perfected subjective right, such as citizenship iure sanguinis, which is acquired at birth.

The Court explicitly cites Judgment No. 25318 of 2022 by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation, which reaffirmed the core principles established by Law No. 91/1992 on the recognition of the right to Italian citizenship. The ruling states:

“The Italian legal system maintains, by tradition, a conservative approach, with no substantial changes regarding the prevailing criterion of acquiring citizenship iure sanguinis, practically unchanged since the Civil Code of 1865, first inherited from Law No. 555 of 1912 and later from the current Law No. 91 of 1992. Fundamental acquisition occurs originally, by birth.”

It further adds:

“Once acquired, citizenship has a permanent and imprescriptible nature. It may be claimed at any time upon simple proof of the constitutive fact of acquisition, consisting of the birth of an Italian citizen.”

Citizenship, as an essential attribute of a person, has an absolute, original, inalienable, and imprescriptible nature (Court of Cassation, United Sections, No. 4466/2009).

Whether individuals had initiated legal proceedings before the Tajani Law came into effect to obtain formal recognition of their status was a mere factual circumstance, irrelevant to the recognition of the right, since it is not a “progressively formed legal relationship” but a perfect subjective right arising from birth.

The Court of Mantua thus expresses itself in a strong and categorical manner:

“An automatic ex tunc loss of citizenship, or rather an implicit revocation, is configured for all those who, born before the decree entered into force, had already acquired, by birth from an Italian citizen, the substantial ownership of status civitatis.”

The Court of Mantua then details, to reinforce its argument, several articles of the Italian Constitution that are compromised by the Tajani Law:

• Article 22 – “No one may be deprived, for political reasons, of legal capacity, citizenship, or name.”
• Article 3 – Principle of equality and legitimate trust.
• Article 2 – Inviolable rights of the individual.
• Article 24 – Right of defense.
• Articles 1, 56, and 58 – Popular sovereignty and right to vote.
• Articles 72 and 77 – Formal law reserve; matters not subject to decree regulation.
• Article 117 – Respect for European and international obligations.

The Mantua Court’s resolution confirms the principles established and follows the precedent of the Turin Court’s ordinance issued in June, the first to challenge the constitutionality of the Tajani Law from the perspective of European Law.

• The citizenship of an EU Member State automatically grants European Union citizenship (Art. 20 TFEU).
• Any national act affecting the citizenship of a Member State must be compatible with EU law.

The pronouncements of these courts reveal that this is a general retroactive revocation of Italian citizenship, based on an arbitrary criterion (the date of March 28), in flagrant violation of European law.

The legal debate before the European Court of Justice will take time, but it will undoubtedly develop.
Meanwhile, it is expected that the Italian Constitutional Court will restore the balance of substantive justice.

It is likely that the two pending unconstitutionality cases — Turin and Mantua — will be merged into a single hearing, as the Turin case still lacks a rapporteur and scheduled date.
While this could delay the awaited declaration of the Tajani Law’s unconstitutionality, it should not be viewed negatively:
the new Mantua Court ordinance strengthens the challenge, adding greater legal consistency to the case — a double checkmate.

It is not excluded that other Italian courts may issue new ordinanze referring the matter to the Constitutional Court for a definitive ruling.

Because one thing is certain — as has been stated from the beginning —:
Law and its incontrovertible principles always prevail, especially against arbitrary political decisions that neither pursue justice nor a far-sighted state policy.

The immigrants who, at the beginning of the last century, arrived on the shores of the Río de la Plata came without financial resources but carried a treasure in their blood: Italian citizenship, which would also become European citizenship for their descendants.

Pablo Munini
Lawyer
T° 55 F° 386
Public Bar Association of Buenos Aires