Campobasso Joins the Fight! Why the New “Political Motives” Argument Could Save Your Citizenship

---

Executive Summary: On February 5, 2026, the Tribunal of Campobasso issued an Ordinanza di Rimessione referring Law 74/2025 (the Tajani Decree) to the Constitutional Court. Unlike the Turin and Mantua referrals, Campobasso argues that stripping citizenship to reduce the number of applicants is a “political motive” forbidden by Article 22 of the Constitution — an attack on the government’s intent. Below is my full analysis of the ordinance, the Article 22 argument, the procedural-abuse claim, and what the referral means for your case today.

---

TLDR
The Tribunal of Campobasso has just issued a massive Ordinance referring Law 74/2025 (the Tajani Decree) to the Constitutional Court. Unlike previous courts, Campobasso argues that stripping citizenship to reduce the number of applicants is a “Political Motive” forbidden by the Constitution. This is a game-changer. The case will likely be joined with Turin and Mantua for the historic hearing held on June 9, 2026.

If you’ve been browsing the web wondering if your case is dead because you didn’t file before the March 27, 2025 deadline, there are significant news.

We have discussed the Turin referral (which argued regarding EU law) and the Mantua referral (which fought for minors). But on February 5, 2026, the Tribunal of Campobasso dropped a decision on that might be the strongest legal argument we have yet.

I have analyzed the full text of the Ordinance (Ordinanza di Rimessione, that you can find and download herebelow), and I want to explain why this specific document matters so much, how it differs from the others, and what it means for your “1948 case” or “Late Filing.”

What Made the Campobasso Case Different?

Until now, the Constitutional Court was looking at “sympathetic” cases—people who missed the deadline by one day (Turin) or children denied registration (Mantua). The government could argue these were just unfortunate edge cases.

Campobasso is different.

• The Applicants: Two Brazilian women (mother and daughter).
• The Filing: August 26, 2025. Five months after the deadline.
• The Situation: They are completely barred by the new law.

The Ministry of the Interior showed up in court and basically said: “The law is the law. They missed the March 27 deadline. They are not citizens. Go home.”

Judge Claudia Carissimi said: No. She ruled that if this law didn’t exist, these women would be citizens 100%. The only thing stopping them is this retroactive decree. Therefore, we have to put the decree itself on trial.

Why Does Article 22 Bar “Political Motives”?

This is the most technical but most exciting part of the ordinance.

Article 22 of the Italian Constitution says:
“No one may be deprived, for political motives, of legal capacity, citizenship, or name.”

Usually, lawyers interpret this as an anti-fascist law: The government can’t strip your citizenship because you are a dissident, Jewish, or an enemy of the state. It’s traditionally about persecution.

Campobasso just changed the game.
The Judge argues that “Political Motives” includes broad discretionary policy choices made by the government for demographic or security reasons.

• The Government’s Excuse: In the law’s preamble, they admitted they did this because of the “exponential growth” of applicants and a lack of “effective ties.” They essentially said, There are too many of you, and we want to change the demographic makeup of the electorate.
• The Judge’s Rebuttal: That is a political motive. You are targeting a specific class of people (descendants born abroad) and stripping their status to achieve a political goal (reducing numbers).

Why this matters: If the Constitutional Court accepts this argument, the government cannot use “administrative fatigue” (i.e., “the consulates are full”) as a valid reason to cancel your citizenship retroactively. The Judge is saying: You cannot fix a bureaucratic problem by violating a fundamental human right.

Can Law 74/2025 Be Struck Down for Procedural Abuse?

Both Campobasso and Mantua are hitting hard on Procedural Abuse (Articles 72 and 77).

• The Fake Emergency: The government used a Decree-Law to pass this. Decrees are for earthquakes, pandemics, or wars (“extraordinary necessity and urgency”).
• The Reality: The Judge points out that the backlog of citizenship cases has been growing for 20 years. It is a “structural trend,” not a sudden emergency. You cannot bypass Parliament just because you ignored a problem for two decades.
• The “Parliamentary Reserve”: Citizenship defines “The People.” You cannot redefine who “The People” are without a full debate in Parliament. It’s too important for a quick decree.

How Do the Turin, Mantua, and Campobasso Referrals Work Together?

We now have three major courts attacking the law from three completely different angles. This is a nightmare for the State Attorney to defend against.

Court	The Focus	The message
Turin	EU Law / Fairness. Focuses on the fact that you didn’t have time to react (Legitimate Reliance) and that EU citizenship can’t be lost automatically without an individual review (Tjebbes case).	“You changed the rules too fast.”
Mantua	Minors / Status. Focuses on children. Argues that citizenship is an inherent status at birth, not a contract you sign later.	“You can’t steal a child’s identity.”
Campobasso	Political Motives / Procedure. Focuses on the Government’s intent. Argues that demographic engineering is unconstitutional.	“Your reasons are political and illegal.”

What Does the Campobasso Referral Mean for Your Case?

If you filed AFTER March 27, 2025
You are not dead in the water. The Campobasso referral is specifically fighting for you. The courts (including Turin and Mantua) are asking to strike down the retroactive date entirely. If they win, your late filing becomes valid.

If you have a 1948 Case
Campobasso was a 1948 case (maternal line). The Judge reaffirmed that maternal lines are valid and that the new law unfairly targets them. This confirms that the courts still see 1948 lines as valid “perfect rights.”

If you are applying for a Minor
Mantua covers you. The courts are very protective of children. The argument that a child shouldn’t lose citizenship because a parent didn’t file a paper in time is very strong.

What Happens Next?
The Constitutional Court heard the consolidated cases on June 9, 2026 — and on July 23, 2026 it referred the generational-limits question to the CJEU (Order No. 147/2026), while the Sezioni Unite resolved the Minor Issue with Ruling No. 24045/2026 on July 27, 2026.

The “Legal Trident” was strong — and the constitutional saga continues. After the June 9, 2026 hearing, the Constitutional Court referred the generational-limits question to the CJEU (Order 147/2026), and the Sezioni Unite ended the Minor Issue (Ruling 24045/2026). I have published follow-up analysis of the Naples ruling on Prenot@mi evidence and of the 10-bis case study.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Campobasso Constitutional Referral

Is the Campobasso “political motives” argument stronger than the Turin and Mantua referrals?

Each referral attacks the law from a different angle: Turin focuses on EU law and legitimate reliance, Mantua on minors and status, and Campobasso on the government’s intent. Campobasso is the only one that squarely invokes Article 22 of the Constitution: if the reform was enacted to change the demographic makeup of the electorate, it is a forbidden “political motive” — regardless of how the retroactive deadline is framed.

Can the Constitutional Court strike down Law 74/2025’s retroactive deadline?

Yes — that is exactly what the Turin, Mantua, and Campobasso referrals ask: to declare the retroactive operation of the reform unconstitutional. If the Court (or the CJEU, after the referral in Order No. 147/2026) agrees, applications filed after March 27, 2025 could become valid again. No decision on the merits has been issued yet.

Does the Campobasso referral help people who filed after March 27, 2025?

Yes. The Campobasso case is precisely about applicants completely barred by the new law — the mother and daughter filed on August 26, 2025, five months after the deadline — and the court held that the only thing stopping them is the retroactive decree itself. A win would validate late-filed claims, not just sympathetic edge cases.

What happened at the June 9, 2026 hearing, and where does the challenge stand now?

The Constitutional Court heard the consolidated referrals on June 9, 2026. On July 23, 2026, it issued Order No. 147/2026 referring the generational-limits question to the Court of Justice of the EU, and on July 27, 2026 the Sezioni Unite issued Ruling No. 24045/2026 ending the Minor Issue. The “political motives” question raised by Campobasso remains part of the pending constitutional challenge.

---

Avv. Michele Vitale
Italian Citizenship & Immigration Law

---