For decades, in the recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis, the foreign naturalization of the Italian ancestor that occurred after the birth of the child was not automatically considered suitable to interrupt the transmission of citizenship when the child was born abroad and was already, from birth, an Italian citizen iure sanguinis and a foreign citizen iure soli.

In recent years, this principle had been called into question.

With several rulings by the Court of Cassation, and in particular with order no. 17161/2023, an interpretation of Articles 7 and 12 of Law no. 555/1912 had been established, according to which the foreign naturalization of the cohabiting parent, occurring during the child's minority, could also lead to the loss of Italian citizenship for the latter.

The consequences were concrete.

On October 3, 2024, the Ministry of the Interior had adopted this orientation with circular protocol no. 43347, transferring it from jurisprudence to administrative practice. From that moment, the so-called Minor Issue became a determining factor in the examination of numerous applications for the recognition of Italian citizenship.

What had not prevented the recognition of citizenship for decades thus began to interrupt the lines of transmission and to constitute grounds for the rejection of applications.

The Court of Cassation overrules the previous orientation

The issue was subsequently submitted to the United Sections of the Court of Cassation, the composition called upon to resolve the most significant interpretative conflicts and to guarantee a uniform direction in the application of the law.

With judgment no. 24045 of July 26, 2026, the Court of Cassation, in its United Sections composition, overruled the previous orientation.

The principle affirmed is particularly important.

A minor born abroad to an Italian citizen, who acquired from birth both Italian citizenship iure sanguinis and that of the State of birth iure soli, retains Italian citizenship even when the Italian parent subsequently loses their citizenship through naturalization.

According to the United Sections, Articles 7 and 12 of Law no. 555/1912 regulate different and autonomous situations. Therefore, it is not possible to use Article 12 to deprive someone of citizenship who falls under the different case regulated by Article 7.

The consequence is clear.

The naturalization of the parent does not, under these circumstances, interrupt the line of transmission of Italian citizenship.

Now the Ministry of the Interior itself changes its orientation

This is probably the most significant aspect of the entire affair.

On August 10, 2026, just weeks after the decision of the United Sections, the Ministry of the Interior issued a new circular, specifically concerning the recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis, the relationship between Articles 7 and 12 of Law no. 555/1912, and the new interpretative guidelines laid down by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation.

It is therefore no longer just a matter of the effects of a new ruling.

It is the State Administration itself, which had adopted the previous orientation in 2024, that now considers it outdated.

The new circular indeed orders the adjustment of administrative action to the principle affirmed by the United Sections.

This step is particularly significant because it shows how provisional an interpretation by the State can be, even when formalized through a ministerial circular and producing concrete consequences on people's lives and rights.

And what about those who have already received a denial?

The issue assumes even greater importance for those who, in the meantime, have received a negative decision precisely in application of the orientation that has now been overruled.

The new ministerial circular also expressly addresses these situations.

For proceedings that have already concluded negatively, the interested parties may submit a new application, which must be evaluated according to the regulations currently in force.

But the Ministry distinguishes the case where the previous denial was based exclusively on the previous interpretation of Articles 7 and 12 of Law no. 555/1912, which has now been overruled by the United Sections.

In this situation, the possibility of requesting a review of the original application is provided.

The distinction is particularly relevant because, in the case of a review, the regulatory framework applicable at the time the original application was submitted must be considered.

This means that the resolution of the Minor Issue does not only produce effects for the future.

The State itself recognizes the need to create a path to review negative decisions adopted on the basis of an interpretation that it now considers outdated.

When the State's position is not the final word

This affair offers a reflection that goes far beyond the Minor Issue.

For a certain period, a relatively recent jurisprudential trend was adopted by the Italian Administration and transformed into an operational criterion for the recognition of citizenship.

Consulates, Municipalities, and public offices had to apply it.

People who, according to the previously consolidated interpretation, would have been able to obtain the recognition of citizenship suddenly found themselves facing a line of transmission considered broken.

Today, that same orientation is overruled by the Court of Cassation and, consequently, abandoned by the very Administration that had adopted it.

The affair demonstrates, once again, that the position of the State at a given historical moment does not necessarily represent the final word on the content of a right.

This assumes even greater relevance when certain state decisions also respond to political, administrative, or contingent needs that do not necessarily coincide with the correct interpretation of legal and constitutional principles, and the historical evolution of the institution of citizenship itself.

The Administration remains subject to the law. The law remains subject to the Constitution. And the entire system remains subject to the oversight of the judiciary and, where applicable, European Union law.

It is precisely this system of checks and balances that prevents a particular interpretation by the State from becoming definitive simply because, at a certain moment, it was imposed and applied.

The debate on citizenship iure sanguinis does not end here

It is necessary, of course, to distinguish the different issues.

The decision on the Minor Issue does not automatically invalidate the new limitations on Italian citizenship iure sanguinis introduced in 2025. These are legally distinct issues that must be evaluated independently by the competent courts.

But what has happened represents a significant precedent in another respect.

An interpretation adopted by jurisprudence, subsequently accepted by the Ministry, and concretely applied by the Administration was reviewed, overruled by the Court of Cassation, and finally abandoned by the Ministry of the Interior itself.

In the meantime, however, that interpretation produced consequences. It led to denials, imposed new proceedings, and forced individuals and families to bear additional time, costs, and efforts to defend a legal position that, until a few years earlier, had not been questioned in the same terms.

It is reasonable to expect that other recently introduced limitations regarding Italian citizenship iure sanguinis will also continue to be subjected to judicial review.

Some may hold up. Others may be reinterpreted, scaled back, or eventually stripped of efficacy should they prove incompatible with the Constitution, European Union law, or other superior principles of the legal order.

The story of the Minor Issue thus demonstrates something essential.

The State can adopt an interpretation and enforce its application in its offices. It can even deny, based on that interpretation, a right that had been recognized for decades. But this does not mean that position is final.

The judiciary retains the task of verifying its legitimacy.

And the fact that today the Ministry of the Interior itself is overruling its previous orientation and regulating the consequences of the denials adopted in the meantime makes this conclusion even more evident.