[LANDMARK RULING] Supreme Court United Sections No. 24045/2026: End to Minor Issue & Law 74/2025 Non-Retroactivity

ITALIAN SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION — UNITED CIVIL SECTIONS — RULING NO. 24045/2026 (FULL LITERAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION)

Redaction ordered

General register number 8548

Sectional number 24045/2026

General collection number 2

Publication date 26/07/2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION

CIVIL UNITED SECTIONS

Composed of:

* Pasquale D’Ascola: First President

* Maria Acierno: Section President

* Lucia Esposito: Section President

* Enzo Vincenti: Section President

* Emilio Iannello: Judge

* Andreina Giudicepietro: Judge

* Alberto Pazzi: Reporting Judge

* Rossana Giannaccari: Judge

* Marco Dell’Utri: Judge

Subject:

Citizenship dual-national minor, Italian origin by ius sanguinis citizen of another nation by the sole loss of Italian citizenship by the parent retention of Italian citizenship by the minor ex arts 71. 555/2012 except renunciation once reached majority age

Hearing 14/04/2026 Public Hearing

has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

on the appeal registered under no. 8548/ General Register brought by:

[OMISSIS] and [OMISSIS], represented and defended by Attorneys Leo Piccininni and Monica Lis Restanio

-appellants-

against

Ministry of the Interior, in the person of the Minister pro tempore, represented and defended by the State General Advocateship

-respondent-

against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Rome no. 6177/2023 deposited on 28/9/2023;

heard the report of the case carried out in the public hearing of 14/4/2026 by Reporting Judge Alberto Pazzi;

heard the Public Prosecutor, in the person of Deputy Prosecutor General Luisa De Renzis, who concluded for the acceptance of the appeal;

heard Attorneys Leo Piccininni and Monica Lis Restanio, for the appellants, and Ilia Massarelli for the State General Advocateship.

---

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The Court of Rome, by order no. 11861/2021 dated 8 April 2021, rejected the application for recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis presented by [OMISSIS], and by the children of the couple [OMISSIS] and [OMISSIS] from the wife of the latter [OMISSIS] and [OMISSIS], holding, in application of art. 12 law 555/1912, that [OMISSIS], although born an Italian citizen (on 25 May 1946), had lost citizenship at the moment when the mother [OMISSIS] (Italian citizen, born in Gosaldo, Belluno, on 19 February 1923, and emigrated to Venezuela, where she was married to [OMISSIS]) had been naturalized on date 3 March 1954.

2. The Court of Appeal of Rome rejected the appeal brought by [OMISSIS] and [OMISSIS] against such ruling.

It held, in particular, that the decision of the first judge was in line with the orientation of the jurisprudence of legality according to which minor children of a person who had lost Italian citizenship ex art. 8, no. 1, law 555/1912, by spontaneous acquisition of foreign citizenship after having established abroad their own residence, lost also themselves Italian citizenship, pursuant to art. 12, paragraph 3, law 555/1912, as there did not come into relevance the lack of a valid awareness on the part of minors to want to renounce the previous citizenship and in consideration of the fact that the same could reacquire such status through a declaration of will upon reaching majority age and under the conditions provided by arts. 3 and 9 of the same law.

3. [OMISSIS] and [OMISSIS] have brought appeal for the cassation of such judgment, published on date 28 September 2023, setting forth five grounds of complaint.

The Ministry of the Interior deposited a note for the sole purpose of possible participation in the discussion hearing of the case.

Appellant party deposited a brief pursuant to art. 380-bis code of civil procedure.

Following interlocutory order no. 20889/2025 of the First Section of this Court, the appeal was assigned to these United Sections, in acceptance of the request of the defense counsel and of the titular president of the Section, to clarify:

* i) whether, 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, had the right as a rule pursuant to art. 7 to retain dual citizenship, remaining to all effects an Italian citizen, except renunciation as an adult, unless the cohabiting father, in application of what is provided by the subsequent art. 12, paragraph 2, lost Italian citizenship by act of voluntary impulse while the former was still a minor, with acquisition of another citizenship by naturalization (by reason of a decision which, as adopted by the “head of family” holder of parental authority, in the legal regime applicable ratione temporis, produced effects also in the legal sphere of minor children subjected to him);

* ii) whether, on the contrary, in the global context of the provisions referred to in law no. 555/1912, art. 12, paragraph 2, making reference to minors who «acquire the citizenship of a foreign State by effect of the loss of Italian citizenship of the parent exercising parental authority […]», must be understood as a rule of general scope to which the provision, for dual-nationals from birth, of a special and different regime of loss of citizenship forms an exception, in the sense provided by art. 7, so that the naturalization abroad of the Italian parent subsequent to the birth of the child could not produce the effect of the loss of Italian citizenship on the part of the same minor child, who had acquired by right Italian citizenship by descent and foreign citizenship due to birth in the country of residence of the family unit.

The Prosecutor General deposited written conclusions, ex art. 378 code of civil procedure, requesting the acceptance of the appeal.

The appellants presented a new brief pursuant to art. 378 code of civil procedure reiterating their own previous conclusions.

---

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

4. The appeal illustrates five grounds of complaint.

4.1 The first ground denounces, pursuant to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3, code of civil procedure, the violation of art. 7 law 555/1912 and the false application of art. 12, paragraph 2, law 555/1912: the appellants complain that the Court of merit excluded, in the case at hand, the application of art. 7 law 555/1912, holding, instead, operating the subsequent art. 12, paragraph 2, in relation to the position of the dual-national, Italian citizen iure sanguinis and Venezuelan iure soli, in the face of the naturalization of the Italian mother, occurred in Venezuela when the descendant, born before the entry into force of the Italian Constitution, was a minor and cohabiting with her; and for having consequently affirmed the communication to the minor child of the loss of citizenship of the mother, by effect of the naturalization occurred.

In particular – explain the appellants – art. 7 law 555/1912 affirms the principle of retention of Italian citizenship for the dual-national from birth, regulating not every case of dual-nationality, but rather the specific hypothesis of the dual-national Italian ab origine by ius sanguinis and citizen of another nation by ius soli and providing that the latter retains his/her own citizenship, losing it only in the presence of abdicative events provided in special provisions contained in international treaties or if, once reached majority age or emancipated, he/she renounces it.

The norm, furthermore, must be read taking into account that citizenship by fact of birth is acquired by original title iure sanguinis, and the status of citizen, once acquired, has a permanent nature, is imprescriptible, and is actionable at any time on the basis of simple proof of the acquisitive event integrated by birth from an Italian citizen.

On the other hand, the provision of art. 12, paragraph 2, law no. 555/1912 must be understood – continue the appellants – as aimed at ensuring that the loss of citizenship, where communicated ex lege to the minor by effect of an ad hoc provision of the Italian system, does not generate statelessness, making anyway safe the recoverability of Italian citizenship by will of the same subject then become adult or emancipated, pursuant to arts. 3 and 9 law no. 555/1912.

Therefore, the judgment of appeal challenged, having brought back the contested case into the scope of art. 12, paragraph 2, law 555/1912 and having affirmed that the Venezuelan naturalization of [OMISSIS] had determined the loss of citizenship of the child [OMISSIS], thus interrupting the line of maternal descent, has falsely applied – conclude the appellants – such provision of law, instead provided for different hypotheses, in place of art. 7 law 555/1912, as a norm necessarily operating in the case at hand, remained in practice violated.

4.2 The second ground complains, pursuant to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3, code of civil procedure, of the false application of art. 9 law 555/1912: the appellants complain that the District Court confirmed the loss of Italian citizenship in the person of the descendants of the Venezuelan-naturalized mother due to non-existence of the hypotheses of reacquisition of citizenship under art. 9 law no. 555/1912, erroneously held operating, both because referred to the cases of loss under art. 12 law no. 555/1912, not relevant in the case at hand, and because anyway unsusceptible of taking place for the descendants of an Italian female citizen.

4.3 The third ground of appeal assumes, according to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 4, code of civil procedure, the violation of arts. 2697 civil code, 112, 101, paragraph 2, 183, paragraph 4, and 359 code of civil procedure: the elements that cause the loss of citizenship – deduct the appellants – integrate facts preventing or extinguishing the relative status; in the judgment aimed at obtaining a declaratory ruling of Italian citizenship the plaintiff must prove the constitutive facts of the invoked subjective legal situation, while the administration resisting must prove the existence of facts that allow eventually to exclude the existence of the same status invoked by the applicants.

In the case at hand the appellants had proven per tabulas their own direct maternal descent, without solution of continuity, from [OMISSIS], through the production of documents and certificates remained uncontested, while no fact preventing or extinguishing Italian citizenship in the person of the appellants had been alleged and even less proven on the part of the Ministry of the Interior, which, in appearing in court, had declared not wanting to contest on the merits the judicial application advanced by the counter-parties.

The Court of merit, in rejecting the application of the appellants, violated the principle of necessary correspondence between requested and pronounced in matter of exceptions as well as the principle of contradictory proceeding, having placed at the foundation of the decision facts extinguishing status raised ex officio and not submitted to the dialectic between the parties.

4.4 The fourth ground of appeal sets forth, ex art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3, code of civil procedure, the violation of art. 2909 civil code in light of arts. 3 and 29 Constitution: the appellants deduct the violation of the conformative scope and of the reflected efficacy of a previous external res judicata (constituted by judgment of the Court of Rome no. 19208 of 14 October 2016) having as object the declaration of Italian citizenship of [OMISSIS], brother of [OMISSIS] and son of the same Venezuelan-naturalized woman, in the face of identical substantial conditions.

Such decision expresses – in thesis – a reflected efficacy in the present trial, although pronounced between partially different parties, because it constitutes res judicata on the preliminary question, on the subject of status civitatis iure sanguinis, having as object the transmissive capacity of the citizenship of [OMISSIS] towards minor children cohabiting with her at the moment of naturalization, under art. 7 law no. 555/1912.

4.5 The fifth ground of appeal adduces, pursuant to art. 360, paragraph 1, no. 3, code of civil procedure, the violation of arts. 112 and 132, paragraph 2, no. 4, code of civil procedure regarding the relevance of the previous res judicata: the appellants complain, in a different perspective compared to the same topic of the previous ground of appeal, that the judgment of appeal omitted to rule and motivate regarding the previous external res judicata, raised in first degree and placed at the foundation of a ground of appeal, having as object the declaration of Italian citizenship of the brother of one of the appellants, son of the same Venezuelan-naturalized woman, in the face of identical substantial conditions.

5. There must be examined, first of all, the first ground.

5.1 In this regard it is appropriate to observe that the dispute must be resolved in light of the normative body applicable to the case at hand ratione temporis, as summarized also by the interventions of the Constitutional Court, without taking into account what is provided by art. 3-bis law 91/1992, introduced by art. 1, decree-law 28 March 2025, no. 36 and converted, with modifications, by law 25 May 2025 no. 74 (according to which «derogating from articles 1, 2, 3, 14 and 20 of the present law, article 5 of law 21 April 1983, no. 123, articles 1, 2, 7, 10, 12 and 19 of law 13 June 1912, no. 555, as well as articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the civil code approved with royal decree 25 June 1865, no. 2358, whoever is born abroad even before the date of entry into force of the present article and is in possession of another citizenship is considered never to have acquired Italian citizenship, unless one of the following conditions recurs: a) the status of citizen of the interested party is recognized, in compliance with the legislation applicable on 27 March 2025, following application, accompanied by the necessary documentation, presented to the consular office or to the competent mayor no later than 23:59, Rome time, of the same date; a-bis) the status of citizen of the interested party is recognized, in compliance with the legislation applicable on 27 March 2025, following application, accompanied by the necessary documentation, presented to the consular office or to the competent mayor on the day indicated by appointment communicated to the interested party by the competent office within 23:59, Rome time, of the same date of 27 March 2025; b) the status of citizen of the interested party is ascertained judicially, in compliance with the legislation applicable on 27 March 2025, following judicial application presented no later than 23:59, Rome time, of the same date; c) an ascendant of first or second degree possesses, or possessed at the moment of death, exclusively Italian citizenship; d) a parent or adopter was resident in Italy for at least two continuous years subsequent to the acquisition of Italian citizenship and before the date of birth or adoption of the child»).

As the Constitutional Court has already had occasion to recall (with judgment no. 142/2025) letters a), a-bis) and b) identify in the submission to competent authorities of the application for ascertainment of citizenship, accompanied by the necessary documentation and presented «within 23:59, Rome time, […] of 27 March 2025» – the watershed separating the persistent applicability of previous discipline from the operation of new conditions required for acquisition of citizenship iure sanguinis.

Therefore, by express indication of the legislator, the new discipline is not applicable to judicial applications for ascertainment of status of citizen like the one under examination submitted before 27 March 2025, which remain regulated by previous legislation.

The clear legislative indication finds further confirmation in the recent judgment of the Constitutional Court no. 63/2026, with which there was excluded the suspicion of unconstitutionality with reference to retroactivity concerning new rules on citizenship, regarding the applicability of the new regime also to whoever was born abroad from Italian citizens before the entry into force of art. 3-bis law no. 91/1992 as amended.

In this regard the Constitutional Court (at par. 9.2.2) underlined that «art. 3-bis does not affect consolidated positions, that is on status and rights of whoever has already been recognized as an Italian citizen, and not even on position of whoever submitted application or received appointment. In coherence with what stated in preamble, the reliance of these persons, even if lacking real ties with Italian society, was considered by the legislator prevalent over interest underlying the principle of effectiveness».

5.2 Once defined the normative framework of reference, the questions raised by referring Section call these United Sections to clarify what is the relationship existing between arts. 7 and 12 law 555/1912 and to verify, in particular, which of the two norms identifies a rule of general character to which the other places an exception.

5.3 The public Administration, for over a century, in examining applications for recognition of citizenship proposed by descendants of Italian citizens by ius sanguinis, born abroad and who had acquired citizenship of a foreign State by ius soli, has always recognized Italian citizenship, independently of the supervening naturalization of parents in a foreign State, making application of art. 7 law 555/1912.

This orientation appears among other things expressed in two opinions of the Council of State (no. 1820/1975 and 1060/1990).

In particular, in opinion of 24 October 1975 no. 1820, the Council of State, called to interpret art. 12 law 555/1912, in the presence of opposing theses sustained by Ministry of Interior, Foreign Affairs and Defense, affirmed that, connecting provisions contained in first and second paragraph of the norm, one derives thought of legislator, so summarizable: «acquisition of Italian citizenship on the part of parent entails, certainly as a rule, acquisition of such citizenship on the part of minor child, but loss of Italian citizenship on the part of parent does not entail certainly loss of said citizenship on the part of minor child»; «Italian legislator cares yes, in relation to minor children, about uniqueness of nationality for same family unit, but this for purposes of acquisition of Italian citizenship, as emerges from art. 1 no. 1 and art. 12, first paragraph, of law 555/1912. Which is explained given that fulfillment of requirement of said uniqueness for such purposes depends on same Italian legislator. And when instead it is matter of loss of Italian citizenship following foreign citizenship, it cannot be held that legislator intended to subordinate such loss to fact that acquisition of citizenship occurs so as to realize indicated requirement of uniqueness of nationality of unit».

With reference to ratio of norm it was underlined how art. 12, «in subordinating, for minor child not emancipated, loss of citizenship to acquisition of foreign citizenship, proposes end not indeed of ensuring uniqueness of nationality for family unit, but rather of avoiding situation of statelessness, situation to prevent which is sufficient, precisely, acquisition of a citizenship of any foreign State».

In subsequent opinion rendered on 7 November 1990 no. 1060, in relation to regime of citizenship of minor whose parents, already Italian citizens, lose citizenship, and to application space of art. 7 law 555/1912, first section of Council of State affirmed that from case of dual citizenship ex art. 5 law 123/1983 (dual-nationals, citizens and foreigners doubly iure sanguinis) remains out, and continues to be regulated by cited art. 7, the case (which comes under examination in events brought to attention of these United Sections) of «minor who iure sanguinis is Italian, but acquires iure soli (that is for being born abroad) or for other reasons relevant for foreign system (e.g. prolonged residence in a Country) a second citizenship».

Numerous were then circulars of Ministry of Interior and Foreign Affairs which, coherently with principles affirmed in recalled opinions, specified that naturalization abroad on the part of Italian parent subsequent to birth of child did not entail loss of Italian citizenship on the part of same child, dual citizen, born and resident in a foreign State by which he/she was held own citizen by birth (iure soli).

In this regard it is sufficient to recall, for all, circular no. 9 of 4 July 2001 of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which specified: «it is recalled here consolidated interpretation adopted for art. 7 of law 555 of 1912, whereby a naturalization abroad on the part of Italian parent subsequent to birth of child did not entail loss of our citizenship on the part of same child, dual citizen, born and resident in a foreign State by which he/she was held own citizen by birth (jure soli). This interpretation, founded on consideration that such norm was to be deemed special in global context of provisions of law 555/1912, entailed, therefore, non-application of art. 12, paragraph 2, towards dual Italian citizens considered in art. 7 of law 555/1912».

5.4 Numerous legal scholars expressed themselves in similar terms.

Some highlighted the existence of an authentic fundamental right to stability and safeguard of citizenship already possessed precisely in order to protect acquired legal situations of constitutional relevance.

Others represented how there exist two types of dual citizenship, one (so-called original dual citizenship) when individual is dual-national by birth, as in case of concurrent application of criterion of ius sanguinis and that of ius soli, and of involuntary nature, since dual status is attributed to newborn without concurrence of his/her will, the other (so-called derivative dual citizenship) in case where individual, born initially with one citizenship, acquires a second status, voluntarily or involuntarily, during own life, for example by naturalization or by iuris communicatio or by attribution of citizenship by benefit of law; in opinion of these the first condition was considered at the time with tolerance, attitude which then translated into legal regulation of such individuals and in their formal acceptance through entry into force of art. 7 law 555/1912, by reason of fact that, as a foreign State could not deprive an Italian of his/her citizenship, in same way Italian legislator was not able to prevent an Italian from having also another citizenship, for sole fact of being born abroad, nor could limit application of own legislation on transmission of status civitatis by descent, abdicating so to own legislative sovereignty, by reason of fact that a foreign law provided criterion of ius soli.

5.5 Different, instead, is conviction of most recent jurisprudence of legality.

Order no. 454/2024 (see also, in coherent terms, Cass. 17161/2023 and Cass. 3564/2024) explained that law 555/1912, while recognizing (at art. 7) dual nationality as a legal phenomenon and not simply as a phenomenon of mere fact, did not consider “foreigner” one who had acquired dual citizenship at birth, but reiterated that he/she remained Italian citizen, unless he/she had voluntarily renounced his/her status civitatis once reached majority age.

It added however that while art. 7 considered condition of Italian citizen (iure sanguinis) who was born and resided in another State from which he/she was held citizen (iure soli), providing that he/she retained Italian citizenship if he/she did not renounce it once become adult, art. 12 of same law regulated a case characterized by a quid pluris, that is by fact that minor was child of person who lost (voluntarily) Italian citizenship.

In particular, according to this orientation, «law no. 555/1912 recognized dual nationality in terms as follows: child of Italian citizen born abroad could simultaneously acquire Italian citizenship iure sanguinis and citizenship of place of birth iure soli, and in such case had right to retain dual citizenship, remaining to all effects Italian citizen, except renunciation as adult, unless in the meantime of his/her minority cohabiting father lost Italian citizenship, and specifically, in case of naturalization, by act of voluntary impulse, that is to say by reason of a decision which, as adopted by “head of family” holder of parental authority, produced effects also in legal sphere of minor children subjected to him. This is only possible interpretation of normative text, by reason of literal criterion, but also having regard to its ratio legis, since it is clearly aimed at preserving unity of citizenship inside same family, in terms in which it was understood as much in 1865 as in 1912, that is as community in which was identifiable a “head of family” who had authority over minors, assumed responsibility to protect minus habens subjects (wife and children) and adopted decisions binding everyone; and provided that family unity was effective, by reason of common residence» (see Cass. 454/2024, § 4 and 5, pp. 14, 15 and 16).

5.6 Such an interpretation of normative framework of reference was opposed by Prosecutor General in own concluding brief and during oral discussion.

The Public Prosecutor, indeed, sustained that art. 12, paragraph 2, law 555/1912, being destined to regulate derivative events of Italian citizenship of minor subsequently to birth and not different case of minors originally born “dual-nationals”, does not apply to child dual-national from birth, since norm presupposes derivative acquisition of foreign citizenship of minor by effect of loss of citizenship of parent, while in case of original dual-nationality minor is already foreign citizen ab origine.

Such a solution, furthermore, would present discriminatory profiles, since it produces effect of depriving minor person of age of a status already acquired at moment of birth by effect of a subsequent event, constituted by occurred naturalization of parent in a foreign State, through a negative imposition on his/her citizenship status, when instead loss of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis must be always result of a manifestation of express will of person.

5.7 These United Sections hold that thesis sustained, in unison, by defense of appellants, by Prosecutor General, by multiple voices in legal literature and by Public Administration, during twentieth century, deserves to be shared.

5.8 Hermeneutic operation that these United Sections are called to carry out can only start from conclusions – which this panel fully shares and to which intends to give total continuity – at which this same panel (cf. Cass., Sec. U., 25317 and 25318/2022, expressly recalled by Const. Court 63/2026, par. 8.1) arrived, in recent times, in matter of citizenship, establishing following principles:

1. «according to Italian legal tradition, in system outlined by civil code of 1865, by subsequent citizenship law no. 555 of 1912 and by current law no. 91 of 1992, citizenship by fact of birth is acquired by original title iure sanguinis, and status of citizen, once acquired, has permanent nature, is imprescriptible and is actionable at any time on basis of simple proof of acquisitive event integrated by birth from Italian citizen; to whoever requests recognition of citizenship falls to prove only acquisitive fact and line of transmission, while falls to counter-party, who raised exception, proof of eventual interrupting event»;

2. «institution of loss of Italian citizenship, regulated by civil code of 1865 and by law no. 555 of 1912, where understood in relation to phenomenon of so-called grand naturalization of foreigners present in Brazil at end of Nineteenth century, implies a restrictive exegesis of relative norms, in scope of supervening constitutional principles, citizenship being countable among fundamental rights ….»;

3. «from arts. 3, 4, 16 et seq. and 22 Constitution, from art. 15 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 and from Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007, it is derived that every person has a permanent and imprescriptible subjective right to status of citizen, which encompasses distinct and equally fundamental rights; this is relevant also in relation to exegesis of norms of pre-constitutional State, where still applicable; right can be lost by renunciation, but provided voluntary and explicit, in deference to individual freedom, and therefore never by tacit renunciation ….».

Fact that today’s appellants claim citizenship iure sanguinis by descent from Italian mother makes appropriate to recall, furthermore, that Constitutional Court, with judgment no. 30/1983, held that cannot be contested interest, legally relevant, of each parent to see attributed to children own status civitatis, so that attribution by original title of sole paternal citizenship injures legal position of mother and is not necessary to guarantee family unity, resolving into surviving expression of an unacceptable diversity of legal and moral position of spouses; consequently, declared constitutionally unlawful art. 1, no. 1, law 555/1912, according to which is citizen by birth child of citizen father, for conflict with arts. 3, paragraph 1, and 29, paragraph 2, Constitution, in part where it does not provide that is citizen by birth also child of citizen mother.

This ruling was followed by decision (Cass., Sec. U., 4466/2009) with which United Sections of this Court held that, by effect of judgments of Constitutional Court no. 87/1975 and 30/1983, Italian citizenship must be recognized in judicial venue to woman who lost it ex art. 10 law 555/1912, for having contracted marriage with foreign citizen prior to 1st January 1948, independently of declaration made pursuant to art. 219 law 151/1975, as unlawful deprivation due to norm declared unconstitutional does not exhaust with non-voluntary loss due to arising of marital bond, but continues to produce effects even after entry into force of Constitution, in violation of fundamental principle of equality between sexes and legal and moral equality between spouses, contained in arts. 3 and 29 Constitution; so that temporal limitation of effectiveness of declaration of unconstitutionality to 1st January 1948 does not prevent recognition of status of citizen, which has permanent and imprescriptible nature and is actionable at any time, saving extinction by effect of renunciation of applicant; in application of this principle, reacquires Italian citizenship from 1st January 1948 also child of woman in described situation, born before such date and under force of law no. 555/1912, and such right transmits to her children, determining filiation relationship, after entry into force of Constitution, transmission of status of citizen, which would have belonged by right in absence of discriminatory law.

5.9 Placing oneself in interpretative horizon defined by interventions of Constitutional Court and by principles of nomofilactic character above illustrated, norms to be examined must be scrutinized, in first place, considering their literal meaning.

Art. 7 of law 13 June 1912, no. 555 establishes that «saving special provisions to be stipulated with international treaties, Italian citizen born and resident in a foreign State, by which he/she is held own citizen by birth, retains Italian citizenship, but, become adult or emancipated, can renounce it».

Art. 8 of same law prescribes that «Loses citizenship: 1° who spontaneously acquires a foreign citizenship and establishes or has established abroad own residence; 2° who, having acquired without concurrence of own will a foreign citizenship, declares to renounce Italian citizenship, and establishes or has established abroad own residence….».

Subsequent art. 12 provides that «minor non-emancipated children of who acquires or recovers citizenship become citizens, unless residing abroad they retain, according to law of State to which they belong, foreign citizenship. Child however of foreigner by birth, become citizen, can, within year from reaching of majority age or from achieved emancipation, declare to elect citizenship of origin. Minor non-emancipated children of who loses citizenship become foreigners, when they have common residence with parent exercising parental authority or legal guardianship, and acquire citizenship of a foreign State. There will be however applicable to them provisions of articles 3 and 9….».

5.9.1 Provision of art. 12 law 555/1912 consists of two paragraphs which cannot be extracted from their context, but must be read and understood in harmony that literal wording of norm intends to create.

First paragraph regulates hypothesis of parent acquiring citizenship, establishing that minor non-emancipated child of the latter becomes in turn citizen, unless residing abroad and retaining foreign citizenship according to law of State to which belongs.

Norm regulates so acquisition of citizenship on part of parent of non-emancipated minor by derivative title and consequences that can arise, regarding status civitatis, on descendant.

It is a norm that does not concern acquisition of status civitatis by original title and manifests, on one hand, a favor for transmission of citizenship also by derivative title, on other hand safeguards retention of foreign citizenship, where so provided by legislation of State of residence, as acquired prioritarily.

Second paragraph regulates opposite case, that is to say one in which parent loses (“spontaneously”, as provided by art. 8 law 555/1912) citizenship, and provides that minor child of the latter becomes foreigner when having common residence with same parent and acquiring citizenship of a foreign State.

The two norms, not by chance placed one after another to favor a concerted and symmetrical reading, intend to clarify that acquisition or loss of citizenship on part of parent reflects on citizenship condition of child in different terms, as in first case acquisition of citizenship of parent influences minor descendant, making him/her become citizen, while in second case loss of citizenship reflects, in similar terms, on child only when foreign legislation provides a correlated acquisition of foreign citizenship, by derivative (or non-original) title, also for minor.

Reason for different disciplines lies, first of all, in fact that institution of loss of Italian citizenship can depend only on national legislation, according to provisions in this pro tempore findable, never on decisions implemented in a foreign legal sphere (Cass., Sec. U., 25317/2022, in this regard, recalled that falls to each State to determine conditions that a person must satisfy to be considered invested of its citizenship see Cass. 9377/2011 and, in EU scope, C. Justice 19/10/2004, Zhu case C-200/02, C. Justice 11/11/1999, Mesbah, case C-179/98 with limit, purely negative, represented by existence of an effective connection between that State and person in question).

Italian State could therefore regulate conditions in presence of which recognize own citizenship to child of parent become citizen, but not establish (in similar terms) those in presence of which foreign State had to attribute own citizenship to child of former citizen.

Respecting this second eventuality Italian State was able only to intervene regulating discipline of own citizenship regarding minor child and, under this profile, provided that loss of Italian citizenship was consequent to acquisition of foreign citizenship, establishing a correlation clearly aimed at avoiding that minor remained lacking any status civitatis (for case where legislation of foreign State did not provide that acquisition of own citizenship on part of parent made descend consequence of automatic acquisition of same citizenship also for minor child).

Therefore, to say it in terms of Council of State (cf. opinion no. 1820/1975, letter F) «acquisition of Italian citizenship on part of parent entails, certainly as a rule, acquisition of such citizenship on part of minor child, but loss of Italian citizenship on part of parent does not entail certainly loss of said citizenship on part of minor child».

Norm, if considered in its complexity, assumes a clear general value, in its intent to regulate effects of acquisition or loss of citizenship of parent on citizenship of minor non-emancipated child.

This discipline depends, for hypothesis of loss of citizenship on part of parent (and in order to allow such loss to reflect also on citizenship of child), on dual condition that minors have common residence with parent who loses citizenship and “acquire” citizenship of a foreign State.

Verb, conjugated in present subjunctive, which alludes to a condition come into existence at moment and in consequence of loss of citizenship of parent.

5.9.2 Similar acquisition by reflection of (spontaneous) choice of parent has nothing to do with acquisition of citizenship by birth, which depends on effects attributed by certain legislations to (involuntary) fact of being born on soil of a given State.

Overlapping of this generative fact of citizenship (iure soli) with a different criterion of attribution of citizenship which values point of connection between person and State constituted by existence of a blood bond with parent already citizen (iure sanguinis) constituted a phenomenon of wide diffusion in an era of strong emigration that legislator of time could not elude.

Precedent above cited of this Court, dealing with phenomenon of so-called grand naturalization of foreigners present in Brazil at end of Nineteenth century, had way not only to recall official reaction that at time Italian government had, but also to underline that this reaction constituted a “significant hermeneutic index”, which “demonstrates how wrong it is even only to hypothesize that Italian law of time – law of liberal State could tolerate interpretations fit for loss of citizenship of its emigrants in dependence of mere bestowal of foreign one, by naked whim of a foreign government. Never in that condition could one disregard relevance of will of person” (Cass., Sec. U., 25317/2022, § 13).

Phenomenon of concurrent application of criterion of ius sanguinis and that of ius soli on part of two different States, with consequent creation of an original dual citizenship, was therefore at beginning of twentieth century a reality not only known, but also of strict and urgent topicality, which legislator of time intended expressly to regulate linking loss of citizenship to a precise expression of will in such sense (it is useful to recall, in this regard, that report of Central Office of Senate of Kingdom, signed by Vittorio Polacco, presented on 22 February 1910 [act 164/A], with reference to loss of citizenship dwells precisely on hypothesis of conflict with foreign legislations in cases of «our emigrants who naturalize coercively and hastily, that is to say on basis of circumstances of too slight relevance for one to recognize there, even if in tacit way, will of ours to change homeland», underlining how was anyway necessary «concurrence of will of interested party» and how, therefore, in cases of «external naturalization not voluntary but coercive» loss of citizenship could follow only when accompanied by express renunciation to citizenship itself on part of expatriate; in same way in report of Commission of Chamber of Deputies signed by Honorable Baccelli, session of 30 March 1912, act no. 966-A, with reference to art. 7 law 555/1912, it is clarified that ratio of norm is that of protecting minor children who had already acquired iure soli citizenship of Country of naturalization of parent.

In this regard cited judgment no. 63/2026, at par. 8.1, had occasion to underline how legislator of time intended to regulate condition of dual-national by right by birth in sense that the latter could lose one of two citizenships, even Italian one, only by voluntary choice, assumed after majority age.

Affirms, indeed, Constitutional Court: «(…) Criterion of transmission of citizenship by filiation was confirmed by law 13 June 1912, no. 555 (On Italian citizenship), which dealt also with problem of loss of Italian citizenship connected to original acquisition (and therefore involuntary) iure soli of citizenship of country of emigration, on assumption that phenomenon of dual citizenship was to be avoided. Choice of legislator of 1912 was that for a model of opting out, proposed by Vittorio Polacco, whereby Italian citizenship was lost only by express declaration (art. 7: “Saving special provisions to be stipulated with international treaties, Italian citizen born and resident in a foreign State, by which he/she is held own citizen by birth, retains Italian citizenship, but, become adult or emancipated, can renounce it”); opposite solution of opting in, advocated by Vittorio Scialoja, whereby Italian citizen who had received iure soli foreign citizenship would have lost with majority age – Italian one acquired iure sanguinis, saving express declaration of wanting to retain it, resulted instead defeated».

Phenomenon of possession of two citizenships at moment of birth (dual nationality by birth) was so regulated by art. 7 law 555/1912, whose wording excludes loss of Italian citizenship in dependence of recognition of foreign one (and by prevalence of foreign regulation over Italian one) and recognizes possibility of a contemporary ownership of a dual citizenship, “saving special provisions to be stipulated with international treaties” or renunciation to Italian citizenship once reached majority age or condition of emancipation.

Norm addresses (and resolves) problem of concurrence between different national systems of attribution of citizenship establishing rule of enduring concurrence and of loss of citizenship transmitted iure sanguinis only through a voluntary renunciation expressed in adult age (and saving special provisions to be stipulated with international treaties).

Not by chance norm is placed before precisely article (8 of cited law) which carries discipline of loss of citizenship and confirms exclusive voluntary nature of renunciation to Italian citizenship; at paragraph 1, no. 2, it is indeed expressly provided, that loses citizenship “who, having acquired without concurrence of own will a foreign citizenship, declares to renounce Italian citizenship, and establishes or has established abroad own residence”.

5.9.3 Same sequentiality of norms, besides their literal meaning and ratio widely recognized by doctrine and cited jurisprudence, places in light that provision of art. 7 just recalled constitutes a rule to itself compared to discipline of effects of acquisition or loss of citizenship on part of parent on status of child, being aimed at regulating phenomenon, different and autonomous, of dual nationality by birth.

It is not therefore possible to resort to a discipline (that of art. 12) to resolve cases regulated by other (that of art. 7), whose total autonomy, consequent from difference of concrete hypotheses regulated, does not tolerate promiscuity or application limits of any kind.

Position of dual-national by right, who acquired by original title as much Italian citizenship iure sanguinis as that of State of residence iure soli, is regulated in autonomous and absorbing way by art. 7 and is characterized by fact that loss of Italian citizenship needs a voluntary and conscious choice, as is textually confirmed by provision of art. 8, paragraph 1, no. 2, law 555/1912.

Subsequent art. 12, instead, is inapplicable to a similar condition, because, in relation to minor non-emancipated child, does not concern dual-national by birth, but who has, at moment of loss of Italian citizenship on part of parent holder of relative authority, sole Italian citizenship.

This autonomy of two norms, without one interfering with other, responds, moreover, to principles recognized by these same United Sections.

Indeed, if as previously affirmed institution of loss of Italian citizenship, regulated by law no. 555/1912, implies a restrictive exegesis of norms relative to it, in scope of supervening constitutional principles, citizenship being countable among fundamental rights, and if from arts. 3, 4, 16 et seq. and 22 Constitution, from art. 15 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948 and from Treaty of Lisbon of 13 December 2007, it is derived also in relation to exegesis of norms of pre-constitutional State, where still applicable that every person has a permanent and imprescriptible subjective right to status of citizen, which encompasses distinct and equally fundamental rights, then an interpretation extending loss of citizenship of minor children in consequence of loss of citizenship of parents also to case where acquisition of foreign citizenship did not occur in consequence of parental choice, but since birth, constitutes an exegesis not restrictive, but, at least, extremely broad of wording of norm and fit for compromising permanent and imprescriptible subjective right to status of citizen acquired iure sanguinis.

5.10 Art. 1, paragraph 1, law 555/1912 provides that «is citizen by birth child of citizen father».

Despite this, today’s appellant [OMISSIS], son of Italian female citizen [OMISSIS], can be considered Italian citizen by virtue of judgment no. 30/1983 of Constitutional Court, which as recalled previously declared constitutionally unlawful art. 1, no. 1, law 555/1912, according to which is citizen by birth child of citizen father, for conflict with arts. 3, paragraph 1, and 29, paragraph 2, Constitution, in part where it does not provide that is citizen by birth also child of citizen mother.

A similar unacceptable diversity of legal and moral position of spouses is valid in general line to equalize relationships of descendant with parent in matter of citizenship regardless of gender, so that it is necessary to equate mother to father not only for purposes of transmission of citizenship by birth, but also of consequences deriving on child from loss of citizenship on part of parent from whom descendant mutated own citizenship and with whom he/she had common residence.

In other terms, art. 7 law 555/1912 refers to who, pursuant to art. 1, no. 1, of same law, was Italian citizen as child of citizen father and, at same time, was held by a foreign State also own citizen by birth iure soli.

At moment when art. 1 law 555/1912 must be considered unlawful in its original text in part where it does not provide that is citizen by birth also child of citizen mother, then a similar unlawfulness can only reflect, with similar scope, also on art. 7.

It is necessary, therefore, to hold that under force of law 555/1912 child of citizen mother born and resident in a foreign State, by which was held own citizen by birth, acquired Italian citizenship from mother iure sanguinis and retained this status, saving renunciation once become adult or emancipated, regardless of subsequent loss of citizenship of mother by spontaneous choice.

5.11 For everything up to now set forth it must be held, as correctly sustained by Prosecutor General, that art. 7 law 555/1912 regulates case where child of an Italian male or female citizen was born abroad and was dual-national by original title from birth, on one hand by blood right by reason of Italian citizenship of one of parents, on other hand by effect of birth on foreign soil; the latter retained Italian citizenship in case of naturalization of parent and loss of Italian citizenship on part of the latter in an era in which he/she was still minor and resided with him/her, saving different special provisions in opposite sense stipulated with international treaties or his/her eventual renunciation ritualy occurred once reached majority age or obtained emancipation.

Art. 12, paragraph 2, law 555/1912 concerns, instead, different case of minor who shared fates of parent with whom had common residence, losing, together with him/her and in consequence of carrying effect of his/her choice, Italian citizenship and acquiring foreign citizenship (not by original way, iure soli, but by communication, for facts subsequent to birth, in consequence of choice operated by father or mother).

This is, for example, case taken into examination by Cass. 9377/2011, according to which minor child of person who, pursuant to art. 8, no. 1, law 555/1912, lost Italian citizenship, having spontaneously acquired foreign citizenship and established abroad own residence, lost also himself/herself Italian citizenship, pursuant to art. 12, paragraph 2, of cited law, not relevant nor existence of a valid awareness in person of minor to want to renounce previous citizenship and being undisputed principle of international law that each State determines conditions that a person must satisfy to be considered invested of its citizenship (principle affirmed respecting a minor adopted at age of seven years by an Italian citizen who then had renounced Italian citizenship when child was still minor); aforesaid minors can reacquire Italian citizenship through declaration of wanting to choose it at completion of eighteenth year of age, pursuant to arts. 3 and 9 of same law.

5.12 Well-foundedness of first ground of appeal excludes necessity to provide on questions raised by other grounds of complaint, determining their absorption.

6. The challenged judgment places itself in evident contrast with arguments just illustrated, where it held that loss of citizenship of mother had an immediate carrying effect also on citizenship of minor child resident with her, despite the latter had acquired since birth foreign citizenship iure soli.

The challenged measure, therefore, must be quashed, with referral to Court of Appeal of Rome, which, in proceeding to new examination of cause, will abide by following principles:

* i) discipline provided by art. 3-bis law 91/1992, introduced by art. 1, decree-law 28 March 2025, no. 36 and converted, with modifications, by law 25 May 2025 no. 74, is not applicable, by express indication of legislator, to judicial applications for ascertainment of status of citizen submitted before 27 March 2025, which remain regulated by legislation previously in force;

* ii) pursuant to art. 7 law 555/1912, non-emancipated minor, born abroad from Italian male or female citizen in a State of residence where citizenship is acquired by original title by effect of ius soli, is dual-national by right from birth and retains Italian citizenship also in case of naturalization or loss of same on part of Italian citizen parent, saving different special provisions in opposite sense stipulated with international treaties or his/her eventual renunciation ritualy occurred once reached majority age or obtained emancipation;

* iii) pursuant to art. 12 law 555/1912, only non-emancipated minor who has exclusively Italian citizenship can suffer effects of loss of citizenship on part of parent with whom shares residence, where, for legislation of foreign State, can acquire (by non-original title) foreign one;

* iv) full equalisation of mother to father which followed judgments of Constitutional Court no. 87 of 1975 and 30 of 1983 operates not only for purposes of transmission of citizenship by birth, but also of consequences deriving on child from loss of citizenship on part of parent from whom descendant mutated own citizenship and with whom he/she had common residence.

11. The judge of referral will provide to regulate trial expenses also in relation to trial taken place in this venue.

FOR THESE REASONS

The Court, in United Sections, accepts first ground of appeal, declares absorbed the others, quashes challenged judgment and refers to Court of Appeal of Rome also for expenses of trial of cassation.

In case of diffusion of present measure omit personal details and other identifying titles according to art. 52 legislative decree 196/2003 as required by law.

So decided in Rome, in council chamber of Civil United Sections, day 14 April 2026.

The Reporting Judge

Alberto Pazzi

The First President

Pasquale D’Ascola