Rome, August 12, 2026 — In a major administrative milestone following the Italian Supreme Court’s United Sections (Sezioni Unite) landmark ruling (Judgment No. 24045 of July 26, 2026), the Italian Ministry of the Interior has formally issued Circular Prot. No. 0065050 on August 10, 2026.

This new circular officially supersedes and overcomes the restrictive Circular No. 43347 of October 3, 2024, aligning public administrative bodies (Consulates and Municipalities) with the Supreme Court’s doctrine on dual citizenship by birth and minor naturalization under Italian Law 555/1912.

For applicants previously affected by consular rejections, this development provides a critical administrative remedy under the broader framework of Italian Citizenship by Descent (Jure Sanguinis), effectively addressing the hurdle commonly known as the “Minor Issue” in Italian Citizenship Petitions.

Below is the complete, literal word-for-word English translation of the official document. The original PDF file in Italian is available for direct download at the end of this post, as well as on the official Ministry of the Interior Portal.

FAQ – Re-examination, Administrative Reconsideration (Autotutela), and “New Grounds” for Rejection

If my rejection was justified only by the “minor issue,” can the consulate add other grounds during the re-examination?

It is not guaranteed that they cannot do so. The fact that the initial rejection cites only the minor issue does not definitively close the proceeding. In an eventual administrative reconsideration (autotutela—meaning at your request, without a prior court annulment), the consulate may attempt to base a new refusal on other issues that emerged during the initial investigation, making your defense more complex.

Is there a rule preventing the public administration from introducing “new grounds” after an initial rejection?

Yes, but it operates strongly primarily when there is a judicial annulment of the negative decision by an administrative judge (TAR / Council of State). In that case, Article 10-bis, paragraph 1, last sentence of Law 241/1990 establishes that, when re-exercising its authority, the administration cannot cite for the first time opposing grounds that had already emerged during the investigation of the annulled decision.

What if I only request a “re-examination” or administrative reconsideration without going to the TAR?

In this case, the restriction is weaker. The law explicitly refers to “judicial annulment”; the prevailing legal doctrine does not automatically extend this same constraint to a simple administrative re-examination or discretionary reconsideration. Therefore, in principle, the public administration can attempt to “renew” the rejection with a more detailed justification, even though this can be challenged on the grounds of procedural fairness and legitimacy.

Why is it important to be assisted by a lawyer starting right from the re-examination request?

Because a “do-it-yourself” request can turn into a procedural trap: by reopening the file, the consulate could expand the rejection with new grounds, forcing you to defend yourself on multiple fronts in future litigation. A technical, well-structured application aims to narrow the administration’s room for maneuver, lock down the record of the investigation, and build a stronger defense path, reducing the risk of subsequent rejections.

If I win at the TAR, can the consulate still reject my application again on other grounds?

After an annulment by the TAR (or the Council of State), the administration is much more constrained: it cannot introduce ex novo opposing grounds that had already emerged and were not raised in the first decision, in accordance with Article 10-bis and the principle of the so-called “tempered one-shot” (one shot temperato). However, a new refusal based on different, newly arisen factors or a fresh investigation remains possible and would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Important Note: A comprehensive legal analysis, strategic commentary, and operational guidelines for filing formal requests for re-examination (riesame) will follow in the coming hours on ItalyGet.com. For authoritative judicial precedents on dual citizenship and Cassation rulings, consult the Italian Court of Cassation Official Portal.

Literal English Translation of Official Circular Prot. 0065050 (Aug 10, 2026)

Ministry of the Interior
DEPARTMENT FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES AND IMMIGRATION
CENTRAL DIRECTORATE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, CITIZENSHIP AND MINORITIES
AOO CIVIL RIGHTS – 0414/0118 – Protocol 0065050 10/08/2026 – UPG

Rome, date of protocol

TO THE MESSRS. PREFECTS — THEIR OFFICES
TO THE GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER FOR THE AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE OF — TRENTO
TO THE GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER FOR THE AUTONOMOUS PROVINCE OF — BOLZANO
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGION VALLE D’AOSTA — AOSTA

and, for information,
TO THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION
Directorate General for Citizens Abroad and Migration Policies — ROME
TO THE DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNAL AND TERRITORIAL AFFAIRS
Central Directorate for Civil Registry and Demographic Services — HEADQUARTERS

---

SUBJECT: Recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis – Relationship between Article 7 and Article 12 of Law no. 555/1912 – New interpretive lines dictated by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation.

Follow-up is made to circular prot. no. 43347 of 3 October 2024, with which this Central Directorate made known, at the time, the interpretive lines that the Court of Cassation had recently expressed with reference to the relationship between Article 7 and Article 12, second paragraph, of Law no. 555/1912 regarding cases of dual citizenship for those born in countries that grant foreign citizenship iure soli (see our technical background on Italian Citizenship: Impact of Decision 17161).

With order no. 17161/2023, in fact, the Supreme Court had affirmed that, pursuant to Law no. 555/1912, the child of an Italian citizen born abroad, being able to simultaneously acquire Italian citizenship iure sanguinis and that of the place of birth iure soli, according to the provision set forth in Article 7 of Law no. 555/1912, had the right to retain dual citizenship, remaining for all purposes an Italian citizen, unless renounced upon reaching majority; this, unless the cohabiting father, in application of what was provided by the subsequent Article 12, paragraph 2, of the same law, lost Italian citizenship through a voluntary act while the child was still a minor, with the acquisition of another citizenship by naturalization (by reason of a decision that, insofar as adopted by the head of the family holding paternal authority, in the legal regime applicable ratione temporis, also produced effects in the legal sphere of the minor children subjected to him). With order no. 454/2024 the Court of Cassation considered that the same interpretation should be given to the relevant provisions of the Civil Code of 1865.

It followed that, following the voluntary naturalization (during the minority of the child who was a dual citizen at birth) of the cohabiting parent, the lines of transmission were to be considered interrupted where the ascendant in question had not reacquired Italian citizenship once reaching majority. In such cases, in fact, the failure to reacquire Italian citizenship prevented the capacity to transmit our status civitatis to one’s line of descent.

Having stated this, the delicate issue was then referred to the United Sections of the Supreme Court which, with the attached judgment of 26 July 2026 no. 24045, overturned the aforementioned orientation, returning to the quo ante interpretation and stating that:

“the questions posed by the referring Section call upon these United Sections to clarify what the existing relationship is between Articles 7 and 12 of Law 555/1912 and to verify, in particular, which of the two rules identifies a general rule to which the other creates an exception.

(….) the provision of Article 7 just referred to constitutes a rule unto itself with respect to the regulation of the effects of the acquisition or loss of citizenship by the parent on the child’s status, being aimed at regulating the different and autonomous phenomenon of dual citizenship by birth.

It is therefore not possible to resort to one regulation (that of Article 12) to resolve cases governed by the other (that of Article 7), whose total autonomy, resulting from the difference of the concrete hypotheses regulated, does not tolerate promiscuity or application limits of any kind.

The position of the dual citizen by operation of law, who has acquired at origin both Italian citizenship iure sanguinis as well as that of the State of residence iure soli, is regulated in an autonomous and absorbing manner by Article 7 and is characterized by the fact that the loss of Italian citizenship requires a voluntary and conscious choice, as is textually confirmed by the provision of Article 8, paragraph 1, no. 2, Law 555/1912.

The subsequent Article 12, on the other hand, is inapplicable to such a condition, because, in relation to the unemancipated minor child, it does not concern the dual citizen by birth, but whoever has, at the time of the loss of Italian citizenship by the parent holding parental authority, only Italian citizenship.

This autonomy of the two rules, without one interfering with the other, corresponds, after all, to the principles recognized by these very United Sections”.

In the context of procedures for the recognition of citizenship iure sanguinis, account must therefore be taken of the new, affirmed principles of law according to which:

• “ii) pursuant to Article 7 of Law 555/1912, the unemancipated minor, born abroad to an Italian male or female citizen in a State of residence where citizenship is acquired at origin by effect of ius soli, is a dual citizen by operation of law from birth and retains Italian citizenship even in the event of naturalization or loss thereof by the Italian citizen parent, except for different special provisions to the contrary stipulated in international treaties or his/her possible renunciation ritually executed once reaching majority or obtaining emancipation;
• iii) pursuant to Article 12 of Law 555/1912, only the unemancipated minor who holds exclusively Italian citizenship may suffer the effects of the loss of citizenship by the parent with whom he/she shares residence, where, under the legislation of the foreign State, he/she can acquire (by non-originating title) the foreign one;
• iv) the full equalization of the mother to the father following judgments of the Constitutional Court no. 87 of 1975 and 30 of 1983 operates not only for the purposes of transmission of citizenship by birth, but also of the consequences deriving on the child from the loss of citizenship by the parent from whom the descendant derived his/her citizenship and with whom he/she had common residence”.

It follows, therefore, that the child of an Italian citizen born abroad may acquire and maintain simultaneously both foreign citizenship iure soli and Italian citizenship iure sanguinis, and the foreign naturalization of the cohabiting parent, occurring during his/her minority, does not determine for him/her the loss of Italian citizenship, with the consequent absence of interruption of the line of transmission.

The judgment of the Court of Cassation concerns exclusively cases governed by Law no. 555/1912. In practice, that is, cases where the foreign naturalization of the cohabiting parent occurred on a date between July 1, 1912 and August 15, 1992. It does not therefore concern cases in which the foreign naturalization of the parent occurred by June 30, 1912 (on which, until the possible emergence of a different orientation of the Supreme Court, one must still adhere to the principles of law identified by the cited order no. 454/2024 as regards the regulation of the 1865 civil code).

With reference to proceedings medio tempore already concluded in a negative sense, it is represented that interested parties – far from having to submit a new application that would be evaluated in light of the legislation in force today – may request exclusively a mere re-examination of their original application.

If the denial issued to them at the time was founded exclusively on the previous interpretive lines of Articles 7 and 12 of Law no. 555/1912 (that is, on the basis of the cited order no. 17161/2023), a new decision may be adopted according to the orientation set forth in the most recent ruling of the United Sections, applying the regulatory framework in force at the time of filing the application for recognition of citizenship by the interested party. Therefore, if the original application was submitted before 27 March 2025 or on the basis of an appointment communicated to the interested party by the competent office before that same date, the limitations on the recognition of citizenship provided for by Article 3-bis of Law no. 91/1992 (introduced by decree-law 28 March 2025, no. 36, converted, with modifications, by law 23 May 2025, no. 74) will not apply.

Competent to receive and handle the aforementioned request for re-examination is the Authority that issued the previous denial (on the basis of the repeatedly cited order no. 17161/2023); this, even in the event of any transfers of residence of the interested party, in Italy or abroad, occurring medio tempore.

Having stated this, in representing that, limited to the naturalizations of cohabiting parents occurring on a date between July 1, 1912 and August 15, 1992, the interpretive lines dictated by previous rulings of the Court of Cassation referred to in circular prot. no. 43347 of 3 October 2024 are to be considered superseded in light of the aforementioned newly intervened jurisprudence, your Excellencies are invited to represent the above to the Mayors and Civil Registry Officers of the Municipalities of your respective province, in order to adapt administrative action to the most recent orientation of the Supreme Court in its United Sections.

THE CENTRAL DIRECTOR
(Orano)
[Autograph Signature]

---

Download Official PDF Document

You can download the original Italian PDF document issued by the Ministry of the Interior directly below:

---

Stay tuned for our comprehensive legal commentary and step-by-step guidance on submitting formal Re-examination Motions (istanze di riesame) to Consulates and Municipalities.