The Bologna Referral: The First Constitutional Challenge to Unlimited Ius Sanguinis
On November 26, 2024, Judge Marco Gattuso of the Tribunal of Bologna did something no Italian judge had done before: he formally questioned whether Italy’s longstanding principle of unlimited citizenship by descent was constitutional. The referral, involving 12 Brazilian descendants of an ancestor born in 1876, set in motion a chain of events that would reshape Italian citizenship law.
The Case That Started It All
The facts were unremarkable by the standards of Italian citizenship litigation. Twelve members of a Brazilian family filed a case in the Bologna court seeking recognition of their Italian citizenship iure sanguinis. Their claim traced back to an Italian ancestor born in Marzabotto, a small town in the hills south of Bologna, in 1876. The ancestor had emigrated from Italy as a young person, and no member of the family had lived in Italy since.
What made the case extraordinary was not the claim itself but the judge’s response. Rather than adjudicating the case on its facts, Judge Gattuso raised questions about whether the applicants had any genuine connection to Italy. He asked their attorney about their permanent domicile (confirmed as Brazil), whether any applicant intended to work or study in Italy, and whether any had previously lived there even temporarily. The attorney emphasized that Italian citizenship iure sanguinis is an automatic right at birth, independent of additional conditions.
Despite this, Judge Gattuso referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, questioning whether Article 1 of Law 91/1992, which provides for citizenship transmission by descent without generational limit, was compatible with the Italian Constitution.
The Constitutional Questions
The Bologna referral raised two primary arguments:
The “Italian People” argument (Article 1 of the Constitution): The judge suggested that recognizing citizenship for people with no cultural, linguistic, or territorial ties to Italy across many generations could alter the very concept of the “Italian people” as understood by the Constitution. With potentially millions of eligible descendants worldwide, the judge questioned whether unlimited ius sanguinis was compatible with the constitutional definition of popular sovereignty.
The equality argument (Article 3 of the Constitution): The referral highlighted what the judge saw as an inequality: descendants of unbroken Italian lineage could obtain citizenship regardless of their connection to Italy, while foreigners who had lived, worked, and integrated in Italy for years faced a decade-long naturalization process. Was this differential treatment reasonable?
Milan, Florence, and Rome Follow
The Bologna referral was not an isolated event. Within months, three more Italian tribunals filed their own referrals to the Constitutional Court on the same fundamental question:
The Tribunal of Milan (March 3, 2025, under honorary judge Laura Agata Crosignani) suspended proceedings involving seven Uruguayan descendants and asked the Constitutional Court to assess the legitimacy of unlimited citizenship transmission under multiple legal provisions dating back to 1865.
The Tribunal of Florence (March 7, 2025) filed a similar referral, adding its own emphasis on the strain that citizenship litigation was placing on the court system.
The Tribunal of Rome (March 21, 2025) completed the quartet, comparing ius sanguinis citizenship with the more limited rights available to children of former citizens under Article 4 of Law 91/1992.
The Practical Impact: Thousands of Cases Frozen
In the months between the Bologna referral and the Constitutional Court’s eventual hearing, courts across Italy suspended thousands of pending citizenship cases. Particularly in Bologna, Rome, Milan, and Florence, where the referring judges sat, applicants who had been waiting years for their day in court found their cases put on hold indefinitely. This suspension affected families who had already invested significant time, money, and emotional energy into their applications.
The Political Context
The Bologna referral did not emerge in a political vacuum. Italy’s government, under Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, had been signaling interest in restricting citizenship by descent. Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, a prominent member of the governing coalition, had publicly discussed generational limits. The judiciary’s constitutional challenge and the government’s legislative ambitions were developing on parallel tracks.
Within four months of the Bologna referral, the government would act. On March 28, 2025, D.L. 36/2025 was issued, imposing a two-generation limit on citizenship by descent and retroactively declaring that many descendants “are considered never to have acquired” Italian citizenship. Whether the Bologna referral accelerated the government’s timeline is a matter of speculation, but the temporal proximity is striking.
The Constitutional Court’s Response
The Constitutional Court heard the combined challenges from all four tribunals on June 24, 2025 and ruled on July 31, 2025 (Sentenza 142/2025). The outcome was nuanced:
The Court rejected the “Italian People” argument as inadmissible, holding that the Constitution does not define “People” and that it is for Parliament, not the Court, to determine who qualifies as a citizen.
The Court declared the equality argument unfounded, finding that descendants of unbroken Italian lineage and other categories of applicants are in fundamentally different situations, making differential treatment permissible.
Critically, however, the Court affirmed that citizenship iure sanguinis is acquired at “original title,” is “permanent and imprescriptible,” and is “justiciable at any time.” And it issued no monito (warning) to the legislature about the prior system, effectively confirming that unlimited ius sanguinis as it existed before the 2025 reform was not unconstitutional.
The irony was powerful: the Bologna referral, which sought to restrict citizenship by descent, produced a ruling that became the strongest legal weapon against the government’s own, far more drastic, restriction.
Questions About Your Citizenship Case?
Every family’s situation is different. Our team monitors these legal developments daily and can provide a personalized assessment of how they may affect your case.
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Last updated: March 21, 2026.