Francesco Rizzo Marullo is an Italian cassation lawyer who moved to the United States in 2009, where he earned an LLM in international taxation from the University of Florida. Since then, he has not left the United States and has split his professional activity between tax consultancy and assisting non-profit organizations. Based in Boston, where he lives and works, he serves on the boards of numerous associations and foundations, including his role as Chairman of UNWCAO, an NGO at the United Nations in New York. For the past few years, he has also specialized in immigration law, helping many foreign citizens, particularly Americans, obtain Italian citizenship.
We spoke with lawyer Rizzo Marullo to delve into the topic of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis (by blood descent), which has recently faced changes in regulations and judicial interpretations regarding its recognition.
Good morning, Mr. Rizzo Marullo. In recent months, the topic of Italian citizenship by blood descent (iure sanguinis) has gained prominence due to new rules and interpretations. What is the current situation?
The situation is complex. With two recent rulings from the Court of Cassation and the ministerial circular issued in October 2024, thousands of citizenship requests are at risk of being denied. A statistical survey conducted by the National Association of Civil Status and Registry Offices (ANUSCA) in collaboration with ISTAT across more than 5,000 Italian municipalities reveals a doubling of applications between 2021 and 2023, from 20,000 to nearly 50,000. ISTAT estimates that including data from local authorities not participating in the survey and applications submitted via consulates, the total for 2023 alone exceeds 190,000 requests.
What led to this situation?
This stems from two rulings by the First Section of the Court of Cassation (Nos. 17161/2023 and 454/2024) and the ministerial circular No. 43347 issued last October, which implements new interpretative guidelines established by the Cassation Court. These rulings represent a restrictive interpretation of citizenship laws, diverging from the previously established procedures.
What was the interpretation before these Cassation rulings?
Article 7 of Law 555/1912, which governed the matter until Law 91/1992, allowed a child born abroad to retain the Italian citizenship acquired at birth, even if they also held foreign citizenship by birthright (ius soli). Two conditions were required to recognize citizenship by blood descent: proving descent from an Italian emigrant ancestor and ensuring no interruption in citizenship transmission (i.e., no foreign naturalization of the Italian ancestor before their child’s birth, and no renunciation of Italian citizenship by subsequent descendants before the birth of the next generation). It’s important to clarify that naturalization refers to acquiring citizenship in a foreign country based on specific legal requirements.
What do the Cassation rulings state?
The new Cassation rulings oppose the dominant previous interpretation. They assert that a minor child of an Italian citizen who acquired foreign citizenship by birth loses their Italian citizenship if their parent chooses to naturalize in another country. The 2024 ruling elaborates that the decision of the Italian parent to naturalize affected their minor children’s legal status. According to the court, the parent’s voluntary naturalization interrupted the citizenship transmission line unless the descendant reacquired Italian citizenship upon reaching the age of majority (then 21 years old) under Articles 3 and 9 of Law 555/1912. However, reacquisition of citizenship was rare, primarily due to a lack of knowledge about Italian citizenship laws.
What about applications already submitted?
This is one of the most critical aspects. Many administrative applications are stalled at their respective consulates, some taking up to two years to be reviewed due to chronic staffing shortages. This leaves many applicants at risk of rejection. Lawmakers from the Democratic Party, such as Deputy Christian Di Sanzo and Senator La Marca, have called for clarity, suggesting a moratorium for applications submitted before the October circular. Meanwhile, the current government has taken a hardline stance, reflected in the recent Budget Law, which increased the unified contribution fee for citizenship disputes from €518 to €600. Additionally, if multiple parties jointly file a single case, each must pay the fee individually, further discouraging these claims.
What are the prospects?
If the circular is applied rigidly, as its wording suggests, thousands of applications will be rejected. This will force many people to turn to the courts, further burdening the judicial system.
What could change?
The only hope lies in the matter returning to the Cassation Court, possibly to the United Sections, which could provide a definitive interpretation. Until then, the situation remains a deadlock, disadvantaging thousands of people, particularly those who submitted applications before the new interpretative rules took effect.
Is there a cultural factor behind these requests?
Absolutely. Many American applicants seek citizenship as a way to claim their heritage. They don’t necessarily intend to move to Italy but want to reconnect with their roots. This strong emotional bond often leads them to purchase homes in their ancestral towns or retire there. Beyond its symbolic value, this also brings economic benefits to regions, especially in Southern Italy, where many choose to settle. Additionally, recent U.S. presidential election outcomes have sparked concerns among Italian-Americans, prompting many to seek a “way out.”
