The 2024 Padua Conference: When the Tajani Reform was spoken aloud, but no one thought they were serious.
Avv. Michele Vitale
While conducting research for an upcoming article concerning the Italian Constitutional Court’s Press Release of March 12, 2026, I came across an exceptionally interesting academic conference held in Padua. The recordings of this event were kindly made available to me by my colleague, Monica Restanio, whom I wish to thank.
Looking back, it is striking to see how, as early as April 2024, academics and high-ranking state officials effectively anticipated the fundamental pillars that would later form the basis of the citizenship reform implemented by the “Tajani Decree” in March 2025.
The Full Transcript of the Padua Conference is Now Available
Today, ItalyGet.com is making available to its readers the full transcript of the Study Conference promoted by the University of Padua (Department of Public, International, and Community Law – DiPIC), held on April 12, 2024, titled:
“On the acquisition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis: (not only) constitutional issues — In light of the singular case of judicial findings in favor of Brazilian citizens”
The event brought together leading figures from the judiciary, academia, and state institutions: constitutionalists from the Universities of Padua and Milan-Bicocca, the President of the Ordinary Court of Venice, the Head of the Department for Civil Liberties of the Ministry of the Interior, and the District State Attorney’s Office.
The publication of this document addresses a need for informative transparency toward our clients and readers: understanding the intellectual and institutional path that preceded the 2024-2025 legislative reforms is fundamental to navigating the current regulatory framework.
Why This Document is Relevant Today
Rereading the transcripts of the Padua conference through the eyes of 2026 produces a particularly instructive effect: the theses developed in an academic setting in April 2024 constitute, in fact, the theoretical perimeter within which subsequent legislative reforms moved.
In less than twelve months from that conference, the legislator adopted two significant interventions:
- The Ministerial Circular of October 2024, which introduced new operational instructions for consulates regarding the preliminary investigation of jure sanguinis recognition applications.
- Law No. 74 of March 28, 2025 (the so-called “Tajani Decree”), whose Article 3-bis inserted a limitation period into Law 91/1992 linked to the submission of applications by March 27, 2025, affecting the safeguard clause for ongoing proceedings.
Padua was not, therefore, an archival conference. It was, in essence, a public working session on the theoretical foundations of the reform.
The Four Argumentative Lines of the Conference
The speakers developed four main, complementary directions.
1. The Principle of Constitutional Reasonableness
Prof. Sandro De Nardi, a constitutionalist and coordinator of the proceedings, raised a direct question: is it reasonable, under Article 3 of the Constitution, to recognize Italian citizenship iure sanguinis based on an exclusively “paper-based” — i.e., documentary — verification without requiring any minimal link with the country, not even linguistic? The implicit answer, supported by several speakers, was negative.
The comparison with the conditions required of foreigners born and raised in Italy to access citizenship through naturalization made this asymmetry particularly evident.
2. The Principle of Effectiveness and the Genuine Link Doctrine
The intervention by Avv. Stefano Maria Cerillo of the District State Attorney’s Office introduced the principle of effectiveness of citizenship into the domestic debate, borrowed from international law through the famous Nottebohm Judgment (International Court of Justice, 1955) and confirmed in a European context by the Rottmann (2010) and Tjebbes (2019) judgments of the EU Court of Justice.
The reasoning is as follows: the transmission of citizenship by descent five or six generations later, in the absence of any concrete link with the Italian territory and community, approaches what international law qualifies as fictio iuris — a legal fiction devoid of substance. For approfondire l’impatto di queste teorie, si veda la nostra analisi su Jus Sanguinis Questioned.
3. The Sostenibilità del Sistema e l'”Argomento Fiscale”
Dr. Salvatore Laganà, President of the Ordinary Court of Venice, provided quantitative data of significant impact (over 13,000 pending cases as of March 2024), but above all, he introduced a decisive ethical-legal argument: fiscal loyalty.
During the conference, the theme of the evasion of the Contributo Unificato (unified court fee) by many foreign litigants emerged strongly. This data was not read as a simple tax infraction, but as the “smoking gun” of the absence of a real integration into the national community. The logic applied was direct: those who evade minimal obligations toward the State demonstrate that they only want the benefits (the passport) without accepting the duties.
It is precisely on this basis that the legitimacy for the strengthening of procedural controls was built: the new circulars are not mere bureaucracy, but the sanctioning response to this perceived “lack of solidarity,” imposing very strict fiscal and registry verifications as an admissibility filter.
4. The Need for Legislative Intervention
Prof. Paolo Bonetti (University of Milan-Bicocca), while recognizing the historical relevance of the link with the Italian diaspora — estimated at over 60-80 million people of Italian descent worldwide — concluded that the solution cannot fall upon the courts. It is up to Parliament to make political choices, eventually introducing generational limits, language requirements, or ius culturae criteria.
The Common Thread: From the Conference to Law 74/2025
| Conference Theme (April 2024) | Normative Translation (2025) |
|---|---|
| Unreasonableness of recognition without generational limits | Introduction of Art. 3-bis: deadline of March 27, 2025 and new generational limit (letter c) |
| Paralisi of consulates as a prerequisite for urgency | Justification of the extraordinary measure by decree |
| Evasion of the unified fee as a signal of lack of integration | Strengthening of procedural controls in the new circulars |
| Principio of effectiveness and genuine link | New evaluation of consolidated positions in the absence of formal acts |
This does not mean that the reform is unassailable on a legal level. On the contrary: precisely the most fragile arguments that emerged in the conference — such as the improper application of the Nottebohm doctrine to domestic law, or the contradiction between the “lack of link” denounced by the speakers and the simultaneous public funding of the “Roots Tourism” project — represent the argumentative vulnerabilities upon which a solid defense can be built in individual cases.
Implications for Those with an Ongoing Case
For those who submitted a recognition application — or had a consular appointment set — before March 27, 2025, the Safeguard Clause provided by Art. 3-bis of Law 74/2025 offers specific procedural protection, provided that the genealogical profile meets the requirements set by the law.
For those, however, who find themselves evaluating their position in light of the new regulatory framework, understanding the historical-institutional path that led to the reform is the necessary first step for an accurate analysis of available options.
Download the full transcript (English Translation) of the UNIPD Conference – April 12, 2024
FULL TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONFERENCE
TRANSCRIPTION OF THE CONFERENCE
“On the acquisition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis: constitutional (and other) issues”
University of Padua – April 12, 2024
INTRODUCTORY NOTE TO THE TEXT
This document provides the full transcription of the Study Conference promoted by the University of Padua (Department of Public, International, and Community Law – DiPIC), titled: “On the acquisition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis: constitutional (and other) issues. In light of the singular case of judicial assessments in favor of Brazilian citizens.”
The document was created using AI tools that transcribed audio recordings of poor quality and may therefore contain errors or omissions.
Following the institutional greetings by Prof. Marcello Daniele (Director of DiPIC) and Dr. Carlo Citterio (President of the Venice Court of Appeal), the proceedings were introduced, chaired, and coordinated by Prof. Sandro De Nardi (Constitutionalist, University of Padua).
The event offered a multidisciplinary comparison between academia, the judiciary, and state institutions to analyze the phenomenon of acquiring citizenship by descent. The debate was structured through the following reports:
- Prof. Fabio Corvaja (Constitutionalist, University of Padua): Who are (and where are) Italian citizens? The case of Italo-Brazilians and the constitutional limits to the identification of the people.
- Dr. Salvatore Laganà (President of the Ordinary Court of Venice): Organizational and procedural aspects of judgments for the recognition of Italian citizenship before the Court of Venice.
- Dr. Laura Lega (Prefect, Head of the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration of the Ministry of the Interior): Reflections on the administrative recognition of citizenship iure sanguinis.
- Atty. Stefano Maria Cerillo (District Attorney of the State): The principle of effectiveness of citizenship in light of the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation.
- Prof. Paolo Bonetti (Constitutionalist, University of Milan-Bicocca): Citizenship iure sanguinis: social and constitutional aspects and perspectives.
Prof. Sandro De Nardi (Chairing, introducing, and coordinating)
The theme, as emerges from the title given to the initiative, stimulates multiple reflections and raises numerous legal issues, not only of a constitutional order, revealing a true tangle of interconnected questions, often dating back in time. Given my background, I will take the liberty of developing a few points to frame the subject from a constitutional perspective.
We all know that the concept of citizenship indicates a legal relationship between a natural person and the State; a relationship that should presuppose the existence of some effective and concrete bond between the person and the State itself, a bond that justifies the belonging of the former to the latter. While it is true that “citizen” is an eminently legal and not ethnic qualification, it is equally true that in national States, it presupposes the existence of common factual data (knowledge of the language, a common history or traditions) that represent a sort of glue between citizens.
This relationship gives rise to a status civitatis, from which stems a set of active legal situations (political rights, the right to vote) and passive ones (duties and obligations provided for by the Constitution). Our Constitution does not contain explicit principles on how citizenship is acquired: it limits itself to prohibiting deprivation for political reasons and implicitly provides for a statutory reserve. It is therefore up to the state legislator, who has exclusive competence, to establish the criteria. As authoritatively highlighted by Sergio Bartole, the Constitution lacks any provision intended to constitute the Republic as the legal organization of an Italian “ethnic community.”
In setting the criteria, the legislator enjoys undoubted discretion but always encounters the limit of reasonableness. The main ordinary law currently regulating the matter is Law No. 91 of 1992, which adopts the criterion of iure sanguinis. By virtue of this precept, the child of a citizen father or mother is a citizen by birth.
Today we will deal with this criterion, considering the problems that emerge when it is used by foreign citizens, born and resident abroad, who, having Italian ancestors (even very distant in time), request the recognition of their status. The phenomenon is destined to have a strong impact on our country, affecting a potential audience estimated at up to 80 million oriundi.
We will take into consideration two paths: the administrative one (consulates or municipalities) and the judicial one (Ordinary Courts). The judicial path is increasingly traversed due to the substantial paralysis of consular offices, which take unreasonable amounts of time to process applications, thus justifying the interest in appealing to a judge, as highlighted by the Court of Venice, which is particularly burdened by the case of Brazilian citizens.
I take the liberty of posing some questions. Is the current regulation, which recognizes citizenship iure sanguinis without setting any generational limit and on the basis of a purely “documentary” check, regardless of the demonstration of even a minimal bond (such as language) with our country, reasonable in and of itself, and therefore compliant with the Constitution? And is it reasonable when compared with the very strict rules required for a foreigner born in Italy to become an Italian citizen?
Furthermore, we must consider the downstream consequences: is it reasonable for millions of people residing abroad, registered with AIRE, to acquire the right to vote and contribute to the validity of a state referendum or local elections, without concretely being part of the reference community? The current unreasonableness of the regulatory framework runs the risk of emptying the very meaning of citizenship, reducing it to a “castle in the air,” to quote the famous painting Le Château des Pyrénées by René Magritte.
I thank you and immediately give the floor to my colleague Prof. Fabio Corvaja.
Prof. Fabio Corvaja (Constitutionalist)
Thank you. My report starts from the constitutional dimension of the problem. The phenomenon is simple: to be an Italian citizen, it is enough to have an ancestor who was a citizen of the Kingdom of Italy (a great-great-grandfather or great-great-grandmother). This occurs through rules considered extravagant today for how they regulate the permanence of the condition of citizen. The State has completely lost control of its population.
We must take into account the “avalanche effect”: as word spreads that it is possible to obtain recognition of Italian citizenship, and thus European Union citizenship, at a reasonable price (a lawyer’s fee), the numbers explode, especially during economic or social crises in the countries of origin, such as Brazil and Argentina.
From a constitutional point of view, we are used to defining the State as composed of three elements: people, territory, sovereignty. The idea of “people” immediately evokes the physical coexistence of the group or at least its largest core. The needs of those resident in Italy are naturally different from the needs of social groups living in another part of the world. Constitutional jurisprudence itself has recognized this ontological link between citizen and territory. Ours is a Republic made up of territorial institutions; a bond based solely on “blood,” without territory, is a logic more colonial than republican.
To understand how we reached this point, we must look at the Civil Code of 1865, which provided for iure sanguinis in the agnatic (male) line and the loss of citizenship for those who had voluntarily obtained citizenship in a foreign country. In Brazil, by a decree of 1889, a mass “Great Naturalization” of immigrants was carried out, providing for an opting-out mechanism (one became Brazilian unless an explicit renunciation was made within 6 months).
Italian jurisprudence, with historic sentences (from the Naples Cassation of 1907 to the United Sections in 2022), has held that this forced naturalization did not entail the loss of Italian citizenship, as the individual’s express will was lacking. Honestly, I do not understand how judges today manage to disapply the rules of the 1865 Civil Code without raising a question of constitutional legitimacy. In my opinion, the only way to resolve this situation is an intervention by the legislator, because this law, applied today at a distance of generations, produces results incompatible with the Constitution, creating a “ghost citizenship” devoid of any real substrate.
Dr. Salvatore Laganà (President of the Ordinary Court of Venice)
I thank Prof. De Nardi for this conference which allows for a comparison between academia, the judiciary, and the Ministry. My approach is jurisdictional.
The attribution of competence to the Specialized Sections for Immigration, combined with delegating law No. 206 of 2021 (Cartabia Reform) which rooted competence in the place of birth of the ancestor, has had extraordinarily negative effects for the Court of Venice. We have recorded a huge increase in filings. As of March 31, 2024, proceedings regarding the recognition of citizenship filed since the entry into force of the reform amount to 16,663, with over 13,000 pending cases. These proceedings represent over 60% of the entire ordinary civil litigation of our Court.
If we consider that each appeal involves entire family units (averaging 10 people), we are talking about approximately 168,000 people who, in a year and a half, have seen their citizenship recognized. A population as large as Mestre. Many applicants, predominantly Brazilian, seek citizenship not out of interest in our country, but to obtain a passport that allows easy travel in the European Union and the United States, thanks to the Visa Waiver Program in which Italy participates.
The Court of Venice pays for the fact that Veneto, starting from 1876, was a land of great emigration to South America. The avalanche effect overwhelms us, jeopardizing even the objectives of the NRRP (PNRR). Consulates (such as the one in São Paulo) have processing times exceeding 10 years; jurisprudence holds that waiting beyond the 730 days provided for by law is equivalent to a denial, justifying direct recourse to a judge.
There is also a worrying phenomenon: many lawyers voluntarily omit to indicate the residence and tax code of foreign appellants to evade payment of the Contributo Unificato (Unified Court Fee). In one case alone, with 512 introductory acts filed by a single lawyer, we calculated tax evasion for the State treasury of approximately 170,000 euros. Our office will act to report these anomalies, but I reiterate that normative reforms and extraordinary resources are urgently needed, otherwise the system will collapse.
Dr. Laura Lega (Prefect, Head of the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration – Ministry of the Interior)
I apologize for not being able to be physically present in Padua. I will immediately provide some data: in 2022, we proceeded to the recognition of over 139,000 Italian citizenships, a number that imposes a reflection on the trend of the situation.
The principle of iure sanguinis is deeply rooted in our history, already present in the Civil Code of 1865 and confirmed by Law No. 555 of 1912. That law was based on the unity of citizenship within the family unit, centered on the figure of the husband/father. If the husband lost his citizenship or acquired a foreign one, the wife automatically followed.
On the “maternal line,” the Constitutional Court had to intervene. With the historic judgment No. 87 of 1975 (the year of the reform of family law with Law No. 151), it was established that a woman no longer automatically lost her citizenship upon marriage to a foreigner. Subsequently, judgment No. 30 of 1983 declared the unconstitutionality of the 1912 law in the part where it did not provide for the transmission of citizenship by the mother as well.
From this derives the current division of competences: for those born after January 1, 1948 (entry into force of the Constitution), recognition can take place via the administrative path (Consulates or Municipalities). For descendants of Italian women born before 1948, however, the administrative path is precluded and it is necessary to pursue the judicial path.
The administrative procedural methods are still regulated by Ministerial Circular K.28.1 of 1991. The exponential increase in requests and the current absence of generational limits are creating immense delays in the consular network (in Brazil alone we are talking about approximately 50,000 pending applications). “Citizenship tourism” also manifests itself, with foreigners ficitiously establishing residence in Italy solely to obtain recognition from Municipalities more quickly.
The granting of citizenship opens the doors to the European Union, guaranteeing freedom of movement. It is a theme that today also engages Parliament: two bills are under discussion in the Senate (DDL La Marca and DDL Menia) which propose structural changes, including the imposition of a limit at the third generation and the introduction of a requirement for knowledge of the Italian language. It will be up to Parliament to make the political choices for the future of our country.
Atty. Stefano Maria Cerillo (District Attorney of the State)
I was very struck by the opening remarks of the President of the Court regarding the evasion of the unified fee by appellants: an element that clearly demonstrates the non-existence of any integration of these subjects within the national community, which is the theme of my intervention, namely effectiveness.
The situation is tragic for the management by the Ministry of the Interior and the State Attorney’s Office. Recent judgments of the Court of Cassation in Sezioni Unite make it absolutely impossible for the Administration to provide a concrete defense. We have decided in many cases not to appear in court, because we have no way of proving an “interruptive fact” dating back a century. The State Attorney’s Office in Venice receives about 2,000 PEC (certified email) notifications per week: with the staff available, we cannot even physically open them. This dominant litigation is paralyzing the State’s defense in all other sectors.
There is also a conceptual problem: there is confusion when speaking of a “right to citizenship.” Citizenship is a constitutional status that entails a plurality of rights (active and passive electorate) but also constitutional duties, such as the duty to defend the Fatherland (Art. 52), contributing to public expenses (Art. 53), and loyalty to the Republic (Art. 54). It is a legal relationship that consists of effective solidarity.
If we look at the practices of granting citizenship by naturalization, there is an extensively discretionary activity by the State aimed at scrutinizing the existence of real integration into the community. On the contrary, in the acquisition iure sanguinis five or six generations later, this effectiveness of integration is not only not verified, but does not exist at all.
Italian legislative evolution (from 1865, to the law of 1912, up to Law No. 91 of 1992) has aimed to eliminate every objective constraint and has opened up to multiple dual citizenship (confirmed by the Italian denunciation in 2010 of Chapter I of the 1963 Strasbourg Convention). However, international law sets limits.
I want to cite the famous Nottebohm Judgment of the International Court of Justice of April 6, 1955. The Court established that a State has no obligation to recognize a citizenship (and the consequent diplomatic protection) if there is no “effective link” (genuine link) between the individual and the State that granted it. Recognition cannot be based on a fictio iuris. And the transmission of blood six generations later is now a fictio.
Furthermore, by transmitting Italian citizenship, we automatically transmit European Union citizenship (ex Art. 20 of the TFEU). The Court of Justice of the European Union (in the Rottmann judgment of 2010 and the Tjebbes and others judgment of 2019 regarding the Netherlands) has clarified that, although Member States are competent to determine the methods of acquiring citizenship, they must respect Union law. In the Tjebbes case, the Court held the Dutch law legitimate which provides for the loss of citizenship for those who reside uninterruptedly abroad for over 10 years and possess another nationality, precisely because it is legitimate for a State to link citizenship to an effective bond, and to revoke it in case of cessation of that bond.
Our current legislation, detached from any criterion of effectiveness, therefore raises very strong doubts of compatibility not only constitutional, but also Euro-unitary. I thank you.
Prof. Paolo Bonetti (Constitutionalist)
Trying not to repeat what has already been said, I would like to offer a different perspective and join the various points of view. The first point to start from is that Italy has been an immense country of emigration. In 150 years, more than 30 million people have emigrated. We cannot forget this phenomenon, also recognized by Article 35 of the Constitution which “protects Italian work abroad.”
Thanks to the remittances of tens of millions of Italians, our Nation survived. People forgotten by the ruling classes of the liberal State, the fascist one, and the democratic one after the war, who had to flee to survive. Today, as of 2024, those registered with AIRE are over 6.2 million. Brazil is the fourth country in the world by number of AIRE registrations (about 560,000), but estimated descendants (oriundi) oscillate between 60 and 80 million in the world, of which about 30-35 million are in Brazil alone. This is also due to the immense fecundity of those immigrants, who founded cities and maintained schools and traditions.
We must also look at this phenomenon in a demographic key. Italy is in a dramatic condition: we are sawing off the branch we are sitting on; we have decided on our demographic extinction. Law No. 91 of 1992 was politically intended precisely to favor the reacquisition of citizenship by Italians abroad, while keeping the door strictly closed for foreigners born and raised in Italy (denying ius soli).
The current Government has also invested NRRP funds in the “Roots Tourism” project, financing small villages to attract Italian descendants from abroad. This shows that the bond exists and is sought after.
At the international level, systems inspired by ius soli (United States, France) aim at the integration of those who live on the territory, while those inspired by iure sanguinis (Italy, Germany, Israel) historically arise to preserve the link with the diaspora. But countries evolve: France has guaranteed its demographic survival by modifying its own citizenship laws.
Our Parliament today is blocked. In the Senate there are various bills (the La Marca DDL, the Menia DDL) that propose the reopening of terms for reacquisition or the imposition of generational limits. But an overall vision is lacking. We cannot forget that the Italian Civil Code (Art. 77) recognizes legal relevance to kinship only up to the sixth degree. Going beyond that for citizenship begins to pose problems of reasonableness. One could take a cue from Germany, which provides for the loss of citizenship if a citizen born and resident abroad does not manifest ties for a long time. At the same time, a criterion of “ius culturae” or “ius soli” should be introduced for foreigners born in Italy, perhaps linking it to the completion of a school cycle (as suggested by Art. 33 of the Constitution).
In conclusion, the solution cannot fall on the Courts or the Municipalities, which must in any case be equipped with adequate resources and personnel. The solution must be found in the designated place: the Parliament of the Republic. If Italy is, historically and geographically, a country of migrations (both outgoing and incoming), we must equip ourselves normatively and culturally to manage it, without every time experiencing the phenomenon as an eternal emergency.
Thank you for your attention.
