Ruling 63/2026: The Constitutional Court on Law 74/2025. An Analysis by Avv. Flavia Di Pilla
📌 UPDATE August 10, 2026: Assess your Minor Issue case with our new interactive tool: Italian Citizenship Minor Issue Tool — AVITAL.
🚨 UPDATE — JULY 2026
Since this analysis was published (April 30, 2026), the constitutional saga has continued. On July 23, 2026, the Constitutional Court issued Order No. 147/2026 referring the generational-limits question of Law 74/2025 to the Court of Justice of the EU — reopening at the European level the questions this ruling resolved domestically. On July 27, 2026, the Sezioni Unite issued Ruling No. 24045/2026 ending the Minor Issue. The “cracks” identified below are now the active battleground.
Who Is Behind This Analysis of Ruling 63/2026?
In these months of legislative uncertainty and jurisdictional turbulence, I have found it essential not only to monitor every evolution of Law 74/2025 but also to consult with other top professionals in the field to offer my clients a solid and multifaceted technical vision.
It is with great pleasure that I host today on ItalyGet the contribution of my esteemed colleague Flavia Di Pilla, with whom I actively collaborate in the strategic analysis of the most complex cases. She conducted an “immediate” examination of Ruling No. 63/2026 of the Constitutional Court, just published, which marks a turning point — albeit not a final one — on the constitutional legitimacy of the reform.
Executive Summary: In Ruling No. 63/2026 (April 30, 2026), the Constitutional Court held that Art. 3-bis of Law 74/2025 — in the part challenged by the Court of Turin — is constitutionally legitimate, qualifying the reform as “proper retroactivity” consistent with the reasonableness test. But the ruling left express cracks open: those who initiated the procedure without an appointment by March 27, 2025, customary international law, Art. 8 ECHR, and the Campobasso and Mantua referrals. Below is the full analysis by Avv. Flavia Di Pilla and what it means after Order 147/2026 and Ruling 24045/2026.
My colleague has just sent me her study on the ruling, which I am happy to republish on my blog because, as always, her observations are not only welcome but extremely accurate and illuminating.
What Did the Constitutional Court Decide in Ruling 63/2026?
The Constitutional Court has spoken. It did so with an articulate reasoning, dense with references to comparative law and European jurisprudence, and with a ruling that leaves no room for misunderstanding: Art. 3-bis of Law 74/2025, in the part challenged by the Court of Turin, is constitutionally legitimate.
We have read the ruling with the attention it deserves, and we believe it is useful to offer some reflections — not partisan, but systemic.
Did the Court Balance Retroactivity and Legitimate Expectation Fairly?
The Court qualifies Art. 3-bis as a case of “proper retroactivity” and, applying the usual reasonableness test, considers that the balance between the expectations of the recipients and the constitutional interests pursued is not unreasonable. The reasoning is technically impeccable in its formal steps. Yet it leaves open a question that the motivation does not directly address: how far can legislative discretion go when the regulatory change operates, in fact, on positions that — although not formally established — had been exercisable for over a century?
The Court responds that the status was not “legally certain.” It is a correct answer on a strictly formal level. But it is also an answer that ends up identifying legal certainty with the possession of a stamp, rather than with the substance of a right.
What “Warnings” Did the Court Cite to Justify Retroactivity?
The point that sparks the deepest reflection is the one with which the Court excludes that the retroactivity of the reform was “absolutely unpredictable.” To this end, it recalls two circumstances: the bills presented in October 2024 and the introduction, in December 2024, of a burdensome court fee (contributo unificato) calculated per person.
That the increase in the court fee can be read retrospectively as a “signal” of the subsequent suppression of the right itself is an observation of enormous systemic significance. This temporal sequence — first making access to protection more expensive and then closing that protection — is an element that every attentive reader must evaluate as a whole.
Which Questions Did Ruling 63/2026 Leave Open?
The ruling, however, does not close everything. The Court itself indicates non-random precisions that leave room for future judgments:
- Point 9.1: The position of those who had initiated the procedure without having received an appointment by 11:59 PM on March 27, 2025, remains expressly unprejudiced.
- International Law: The path of customary international law remains open (Art. 10, paragraph 1, of the Constitution).
- Art. 8 ECHR: The profile of the right to private and family life has never been brought before the Italian Constitutional Court in this context.
- Pending Judgments: The issues raised by the Courts of Campobasso and Mantova remain pending, as they were not absorbed by this ruling.
Is the Constitutional Challenge to Law 74/2025 Over?
Ruling No. 63/2026 closes a season, but it does not close a chapter. For those who had already attempted to apply before March 28, 2025 — and found themselves blocked by consular waiting lists or appointments never communicated — the profiles of unreasonableness have not yet been addressed on the merits.
As lawyers, our task is to know where to “knock” and what new arguments to bring before the judges who have yet to rule. Avv. Di Pilla and I will continue to work together to defend the rights of those who have seen their family history interrupted by such a drastic reform. Since this analysis, I have published the full Campobasso referral analysis, the Naples ruling on Prenot@mi evidence, and the 10-bis case study.
If your case falls among the “open” ones cited by the Court, or if you want a specific evaluation of your position in light of this ruling, we are at your disposal.
Frequently Asked Questions About Constitutional Court Ruling 63/2026
What did the Constitutional Court decide in Ruling 63/2026?
Art. 3-bis of Law 74/2025, in the part challenged by the Court of Turin, was held constitutionally legitimate. The Court qualified the rule as a case of “proper retroactivity” and, applying the reasonableness test, considered the balance between the expectations of the recipients and the constitutional interests pursued to be not unreasonable.
Which challenges were rejected, and which remain open?
The Turin challenge (EU law and legitimate expectation) was rejected on the merits. The ruling expressly left unprejudiced: the position of those who initiated the procedure without receiving an appointment by 11:59 PM on March 27, 2025 (Point 9.1); customary international law (Art. 10.1 of the Constitution); the Art. 8 ECHR private-and-family-life profile; and the referrals of the Courts of Campobasso and Mantova, still pending.
What does Order 147/2026 of the Constitutional Court mean for this ruling?
On July 23, 2026, the Constitutional Court issued Order No. 147/2026 referring the generational-limits question of Law 74/2025 to the Court of Justice of the EU — reopening at the European level the very question 63/2026 resolved domestically. The “cracks” identified in this analysis are now the active battleground before the CJEU.
Is the constitutional challenge to Law 74/2025 over?
No. Ruling 63/2026 closed a season but not the chapter. On July 27, 2026, the Sezioni Unite ended the Minor Issue with Ruling No. 24045/2026, and the generational-limits question is now before the CJEU (Order 147/2026). For those blocked by consular waiting lists or never-communicated appointments before March 28, 2025, the profiles of unreasonableness have still not been decided on the merits.
Was Your Application Blocked by the 2025 Reform?
If your case falls among the “open” ones cited by the Court — Prenot@mi attempts before March 27, 2025, consular waiting lists, minors, or the Campobasso/Mantua referrals — the post-147/2026 landscape may give you new arguments. I can assess your position in light of Ruling 63/2026 and the CJEU referral.
Lost Italian Citizenship Due to Foreign Naturalization Before 1992?
Download the official 5-Document Eligibility Checklist for the extraordinary Law 74/2025 statutory window (2025–2027) and verify if you qualify to reacquire Italian citizenship.
Is there a potential loophole for minors? I don’t mean the traditional “minor issue”, but am considering children of Italian descent who may have had no opportunity to avail themselves of their pre-74/2025 citizenship right simply on the basis of being too young to take appropriate action. Perhaps even if hope is lost for adults, might there still be a constitutional argument for their minor children?
It seems to me that the reasoning that there were clear signals in advance does not hold water in cases where an individual simply could not have independently exercised their right on account of not being old enough. In many cases, they may have been been too young to know of or to comprehend the “signals” and take appropriate action. Perhaps they were not even permitted to take such action — can minors even file cases without a parent’s or guardian’s support? If they are disempowered from doing so, then that seems like a fundamentally supportive argument in itself.
This seems potentially incompatible with “proper retroactivity.”
I agree. The thing is, this reform has trampled so clumsily and superficially upon a regulatory and jurisprudential framework that is deeply reasoned and rooted in the fabric of Italian law, that the final result—the devastating impact of which we cannot yet fully grasp—cannot be logically or legally sustained by our legal system.
For this reason, I expect that the so-called loopholes, and the glaring contradictions between the new ‘principles’ of the reform and the fundamental rights enshrined throughout the Italian and European legal systems (not just the constitutional ones), will inevitably come to light, forcing the guardians of Italian case law – our judges – to carry out a necessary and appropriate gradual dismantling of the reform.
A long battle lies ahead.