Italian Courts Are Splitting on What to Do After the Constitutional Court Ruling: Suspend, Proceed, or Defer?

In the two weeks since the Constitutional Court’s March 12 press release, Italian tribunals have responded in strikingly different ways. Some are suspending all post-decree cases. Others are pressing ahead with rulings that ignore the new law entirely. Still others are deferring until fall 2026, waiting for the full written sentenza. The result is a fractured landscape where the outcome of your case may depend as much on which court you’re in as on the merits of your claim.

The Three Responses

Courts That Are Proceeding

The Venice tribunal has continued to issue sentenze recognizing citizenship in cases that predate the decree, and, as we reported, at least one judge has recognized citizenship in a post-decree filing without referencing Law 74/2025 at all. Venice’s approach reflects its established jurisprudential line: citizenship is a permanent, imprescriptible right acquired at birth, and the court’s role is to verify the factual chain of descent.

Courts That Are Suspending

Some tribunals have suspended pending cases, particularly those involving post-decree filings, to await the Constitutional Court’s full written motivazioni. The reasoning is straightforward: until the Court’s detailed reasoning is available, judges cannot be certain which arguments were accepted, which were rejected on procedural grounds, and whether any implicit guidance (monito) was issued to the legislature.

Courts That Are Deferring

A third group, including several practitioners’ reports from Milan and Brescia, suggests that judges are informally deferring proceedings until fall 2026 without formally suspending them. This approach avoids the procedural complications of a formal suspension while giving the legal landscape time to clarify, particularly in light of the April 14 Sezioni Unite hearing and the June 9 Mantova constitutional hearing.

What This Means for Your Case

The practical implication is that forum matters more than ever. The tribunal where your case is pending, and the judge assigned to it, will significantly influence both the timeline and the outcome. This is not a new phenomenon in Italian citizenship litigation, but the post-March 12 divergence has made it more acute.

Avv. Marco Mellone, who represents the applicants in the Sezioni Unite cases, has advised clients with pending court cases to request a postponement until fall 2026. Professor Corrado Caruso has suggested that the EU courts in Luxembourg may be the ultimate venue for resolving the conflict. Other practitioners are advising clients to file protective applications now, on the theory that establishing an early filing date maximizes options regardless of which way the law evolves.

The Campobasso Signal

Perhaps the most telling indicator came from Campobasso. On March 16, just four days after the Constitutional Court’s press release, Judge Rossella Casillo issued a new decision expressly reaffirming the existence of constitutional concerns not addressed by the Turin ruling. Two additional Campobasso referrals were published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale on March 18. The lower judiciary is not treating the March 12 outcome as the final word.

The landscape will continue to evolve rapidly through spring and summer 2026. The Sezioni Unite hearing (April 14), the Mantova constitutional hearing (June 9), and the eventual publication of the Constitutional Court’s full sentenza will each reshape the terrain. Until then, the system remains in flux.

This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.