Italian Citizenship and Constitutional Challenges: An Interview with Marco Mellone
United Sections, Ordinances of Mantua and Campobasso: the state of play in a three-way conversation with colleagues from the Natitaliani Association.
A common front for the protection of rights
Unexpected circumstances, at times, create the best opportunities for discussion. What was supposed to be an Instagram live on the channel of the Natitaliani Association – a reality of which I, my colleague Flavia Di Pilla, and colleague Marco Mellone are members, and which was born precisely to protect the rights of Italian descendants, lately too often trampled upon – turned into a meeting on Google Meet due to sudden technical problems.
As a member of the Association, I gladly offered to host the meeting to allow the interview to take place. This “change of plans” gave me the opportunity and the great pleasure of participating directly in an extremely interesting and highly topical discussion, given the major challenges that we lawyers specializing in citizenship are facing to protect the rights of our clients.
In this interview, conducted by colleague Di Pilla, we analyzed together with Lawyer Mellone the legal scenarios of 2026. These are not isolated opinions, but a shared technical reading among professionals who operate jointly for a common goal.
Here are the fundamental legal passages that emerged from our discussion.
1. April 14, 2026: The decisive match at the United Sections
The first topic addressed is the one related to citizenship cases rejected due to the naturalization of the Italian parent during the child’s minority. The Court of Cassation has set the hearing at the United Sections (Sezioni Unite) for April 14, 2026, to decide definitively on this case type.
During the discussion, we highlighted a fundamental historical and sociological fact, well described by Mellone:
“Italians emigrated and naturalized late, at 30, 35, or 40 years old. At the time, the age of majority was reached at 21. It is clear that they had minor children.”
If the restrictive interpretation of the Cassation (which started in 2023) were confirmed, it is estimated that over 50-60% of bloodlines – especially in the United States and France – would be interrupted, as the minor children would have lost their citizenship along with their father. The common goal, as a panel of specialists, is to obtain a ruling from the United Sections that thoroughly analyzes Art. 12 of the 1912 law and provides a definitive decision for all Italian judges.
2. The Admissibility Node: Why Mantua risks and Campobasso does not
The most technically dense point of the interview concerns the constitutional strategy and the crucial distinction between the various ordinances of referral to the Constitutional Court (Consulta).
Mellone clarified a fundamental aspect regarding the ordinance of the Court of Mantua (and similarly that of Turin). Although the Mantua ordinance was issued in a procedural phase following the decree, the substantive story (namely the birth of the minor and the naturalization of the parent) refers to facts and recognitions that occurred in an era prior to the issuance of the Tajani Decree.
This distinction is vital: the Constitutional Court is extremely rigid regarding admissibility criteria. If the case under judgment is based on facts regulated by the old legislation, the Court might refuse to judge the legitimacy of the new decree, declaring the matter inadmissible.
On the contrary, the two ordinances from the Court of Campobasso concern appeals filed after May 24, while the conversion law was fully in force.
“These ordinances are somewhat more ‘bulletproof’ from the point of view of possible admissibility issues,” Mellone explained. “There is no doubt that the conditions provided by the conversion law apply.”
3. The “Provocation” on Retroactivity
Another key passage concerns the temporal scope of application of the new law (Law 74/2024). During a hearing at the Cassation held only three days after the law came into force, Mellone launched a legal “provocation” to the Board, asking to clarify that cases started years ago were not affected by the new legislation, which presents very broad profiles of retroactivity.
The Court accepted this request: the United Sections, this coming April, will also touch upon the subject of non-retroactivity. The conclusions they draw will be – to quote the expression used in the interview – “gospel” (oro colato) for all of us practitioners and for the descendants.
Conclusion: A shared strategy
To the question of how to navigate this uncertain scenario, the answer that emerged from the debate is pragmatic. Although the current regulatory context is hostile, it is known: “We know our enemy and we also know that that law is highly unconstitutional.” The future, instead, is an unknown: a possible new decree, perhaps written in a less constitutionally vulnerable way, would make the situation more difficult.
For this reason, the orientation emerged among us professionals is that acting today represents a calculated risk preferable to inaction. It is a complex battle, which the Nati Italiani Association carries forward with a competent and coordinated defense.
I invite you to watch the full interview in the video interview to delve into all the technical details of this interview of Marco Mellone.
