What if your parent's naturalization wasn't an obstacle to your citizenship? When an "or" can make all the difference!

Law 74/2025 (Art. 3-bis) allows you to apply for citizenship if your grandparent had *exclusive* citizenship, even if your parent has lost it!

The Ministry, however, tried to hide the crime by publishing Circular 26185 to say "No, it's not true, the parent's naturalization counts."

The judge must apply the law (which opens the way), not the circular (which closes the way). We can ask the judge not to apply the circular.

It would be a pilot case, complex but with solid foundations.

The only way for those with a broken line.

#1. Introduction: Breaking the bureaucratic barrier

Italian citizenship *jure sanguinis* has never been a straight line.

It's a tangle of laws, rulings, circulars, and unwritten practices. But in 2025, this labyrinth changed radically. The approval of Law 74/2025, which converted, with amendments, Decree-Law 36, marked a watershed moment, and the political intent was clear: to erase the principles of citizenship transmission by "jus sanguinis" that had governed the Italian legal landscape for over 150 years.

However, as often happens in the complex Italian legislative system, the rush to close one door ended up leaving another open.

A small "back door," hidden between the lines of a technical article, but potentially revolutionary for thousands of descendants whose applications are currently blocked.

This door has a technical name: **Article 3-bis, letter c)**. And the resulting strategy is what we call **"The Defense of the Authentic Bond"**.

In this article, we'll not only explore why this strategy is legally sound, but I'll show you the "overwhelming evidence": evidence that the Ministry of the Interior *knows* it has made a huge legislative mistake and is desperately (and illegitimately) trying to remedy it with a Circular, No. 26185 of May 28, 2025.

But let's proceed in order.

#2. The "mechanism": Article 3-bis and the generational leap

To understand the opportunity, we must first look at the text of the law.

Law 74/2025 introduces a general exclusion from citizenship recognition for those born abroad. This is the basic rule that has everyone panicking. But every rule has its exceptions. Article 3-bis lists the conditions under which the exclusion does not apply.

Let's read together the condition established in letter c):

*"The exclusion referred to in paragraph 1 does not apply if a first* ***or*** *second degree ascendant possesses, or possessed at the time of death, exclusively Italian citizenship."*

Let us analyze the words as a scrupulous judge would:

1. **"First or second degree ascendant":** The law makes Parent (1st degree) and Grandparent (2nd degree) both possible options ("**OR**"). This is the crucial point. It does not establish a combined requirement ("first the father AND then also the grandfather"). It makes them alternatives.

2. **"Exclusively Italian citizenship":** This is the purity requirement. The ascendant must not have held dual citizenship at the relevant time (child's birth or death).

# The typical case: the broken line

Imagine this very common situation:

* **Your grandfather (Egidio)** was born in Italy in 1930. He emigrated to the USA, lived there his entire life, but, out of pride or laziness, never became a naturalized Italian citizen. He died an Italian citizen in 1997.

* *Grandparent's status:* Exclusive Italian citizenship. (Complies with Article 3-bis, letter c).

* **Your father (Simone)** was born in Italy in 1961 (he's Italian). In 1986, before you were born, he naturalized in the USA, thus automatically renouncing his Italian citizenship.

* *Father's Status:* Broken Line. According to the old Law 555/1912 and the Consulates, the chain is broken. You are the son of a foreigner.

Until yesterday, according to the "classical" principles of *jus sanguinis* of the old law, your case was closed. "Rejected."

But today, with Law 74/2025, we can say: *"Wait a minute. The law says that the preclusion does not apply if my SECOND DEGREE ascendant (Egidio) had exclusive citizenship. Egidio did. Therefore, I have an 'Authentic Bond' protected by law, which prevails over my father's renunciation."*

It's **The Defense of the Authentic Bond**. We use the grandfather's "pure" title to legitimize the grandson, demonstrating that the bond with Italy has never truly been broken.

#3. The Ministry's reaction: panic and circular 26185

If this interpretation seems too good to be true, you're not alone. The Ministry of the Interior noticed it too. And they noticed it immediately.

So much so that after the entry into force of Law 74, on 28 May 2025, the Ministry urgently issued **Circular no. 26185**.

The Ministry intended this document to be an "operational guide." In reality, it's a confession.

What does the Circular say? Using bureaucratic language, the Ministry attempts to "ignore" the letter of the law by instructing Civil Status Officers and Consulates to interpret Article 3-bis, letter c) restrictively: according to them, the reference to the second-degree ascendant applies *only* if the first-degree ascendant is deceased or incapacitated, or cannot be used to "cure" a renunciation that occurred in the intermediate generation.

In essence, the Ministry says: *"Yes, we know that the law says 'A or B,' but we want you to read it as 'A and B' necessarily co-present."*

The Ministry argues, against logic and grammar, that the father's and grandfather's conditions must coexist to ensure continuity, transforming an alternative ("or") into a cumulative requirement ("and"). They intended to write "**E**," but ended up writing "**O**." And now they're trying to correct the posthumous error.

# The "overwhelming evidence"

Why is this Circular so important to us?

If Law 74/2025 had been clear in prohibiting the "jump," the Ministry would not have needed to issue an emergency circular to "bend" its interpretation. The very fact that they rushed to "correct" the regulatory scope of letter c) is proof that **they know they made a mistake in drafting the law**.

They left a huge gaping hole.

And now they're trying to close it with a piece of paper that's worth much less than the law itself.

#4. Hierarchy of sources: why the judge is not an employee

Here we enter the heart of our constitutional strategy. It's essential that you understand the difference between a Consulate and a Court.

**The Administration (Consulates/Municipalities) is bound by circulars.** If you go to the Consulate in New York with this thesis, the clerk will open the drawer, take out Circular 26185, and say no. He has no choice. He is a hierarchical employee of the Ministry. He must obey, even if the circular is against the written law.

**The Judge is subject ONLY to the Law.** Article 101 of the Italian Constitution is clear: *"Judges are subject only to the law."* A judge does not take orders from the Ministry of the Interior. A Circular, for a magistrate, is merely an internal opinion, a piece of paper. If the Circular says X and the Law says Y, the Judge **MUST** apply Y and not apply X.

This is where our game is played.

Let's take the case to a Civil Judge. The State Attorney's Office (*State Attorney's Office*) will appear in court and say: *"But Mr. Judge, Circular 26185 says this can't be done!"* And we will respond: *"Mr. Judge, the Circular can say whatever it wants. But Article 3-bis of Law 74, passed by Parliament, explicitly states 'first or second degree'. Ubi lex voluit dixit, ubi noluit tacuit (Where the law wanted, it said; where it didn't want, it remained silent). If the legislator had wanted to impose a hierarchy or cumulative requirements, it would have written it. It didn't. The Ministry cannot rewrite the law via a circular."*

#5. In-Depth Legal Analysis: The Power of the Letter "C"

Why are we confident that our thesis will hold up in court? Because it is based on the fundamental hermeneutic (interpretative) criteria of our legal system:

# A. The literal argument

Article 12 of the Preliminary Provisions to the Civil Code requires the law to be interpreted primarily according to the "meaning made clear by the proper meaning of the words." The conjunction "or" in the phrase "first ascendant" or "second degree ascendant" is disjunctive. It offers an alternative. It does not establish cumulative necessity. Transforming that "or" into an "and" (requiring the co-presence of the conditions) violates the text of the law. No constitutionally minded judge enjoys rewriting laws to please the government.

# B. The "Ratio Legis" (intent of the legislator)

The State Attorney's Office will argue that the legislator's intention was restrictive. And that's true. But the subjective intention of the politician who wrote the draft matters little if the approved text says otherwise. In law, the objectivity of the legislative text (the *voluntas legis*) prevails. If Parliament has approved a text that opens a window, that window is law, even if the proponent intended a wall. The legislator's technical error plays to the citizen's advantage (*favor libertatis*).

# C. The protection of exclusive status

There's a profound logic to Article 3-bis, letter c). The legislator wanted to reward/protect those with a "pure" and strong bond with Italy. The grandfather who never naturalized represents this strong bond. Granting citizenship to a grandchild isn't a gift, but rather recognition that that original bond (represented by the grandfather) was strong enough to "survive" the tragedies of the intervening generation.

This interpretation is not only logical; it is confirmed by parliamentary deliberations. The **Explanatory Report to Bill (DDL) 1432** (Senate Act) expressly cites the "Nottebohm Principle" (International Court of Justice, 1955) to define citizenship as a *"genuine bond."* By requiring the **exclusivity** of the ascendant's citizenship, the legislator has chosen the only objective indicator capable of demonstrating that that family branch has never fully "assimilated" abroad. It is proof of the "strongest factual bond" that justifies the exception to the rule.

#6. The procedural strategy: direct attack

Forget the old guides that told you to "get in line at the Consulate." In this scenario, lines no longer exist.

Recent case law (Courts of Rome, Florence, Venice) is rock solid: there is no need to wait for a formal denial when the law or practice renders the administrative request useless (*inutiliter data*).

**Phase 1: Skip the Consulate (Immediate Interest in Acting)** We will not submit an application to the Consulate. Why?

1. **Factual impossibility:** The booking systems (Prenot@mi) are saturated, with waiting times lasting years. Judges recognize that this administrative "denied justice" opens the doors of the Court.

2. **Legal futility (the "wall" of Law 74):** Above all, it would be useless to ask the Consulate for a document that it *cannot* issue. Civil Status Officers and Consuls are bound by Circular 26185 which imposes refusal.

* *The strategy:* We argue to the Judge that the standing (interest to bring an action) is *"in re ipsa"* (inherent in the facts). Forcing you to accept a foregone conclusion would be a formalism that would be harmful to your rights. We go directly to the source of justice.

**Phase 2: The judicial appeal (pursuant to Article 281-decies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure)** We file the appeal directly with the competent court in Italy (that of the grandfather's region of birth). The core of the filing is not defensive, it is assertive: *"Mr. Judge, the law states X (Article 3-bis, letter c). The Ministry applies Y (Circular). We ask you to ascertain the right by applying X, ignoring Y."*

**Timescales and risks** By skipping the consular phase, we save years. The case will last approximately 18-24 months. Is there a risk of rejection? Yes. But there is a **good chance of success**. Why a good chance? Because judges could decide to interpret the law "correctively" to align with the restrictive spirit of the reform. But that's the only game you can play. The alternative is 0%.

#7. Conclusion: Fortune favors the bold (and the prepared)

Circular 26185 of May 28, 2025, isn't the end of the story. It's just the Ministry's first move in a chess game that will be played out in the courts.

The Ministry made a tactical error: it wrote a law with a loophole, and then tried to cover it up with a finger (the circular). The job of a strategic lawyer is to point out that loophole to the judge and demand that the law be applied as it stands, not as the Minister would like.

If you have an "Exclusive Grandparent" and a blocked road, don't stop at the Circular. That document binds the clerk at the counter, not your fate or the Judge who will decide your case.