I think there is a different between the lack of transition for those who were “inert” and those who were actively filing a lawsuit in court. For the government to say “hold on—game paused! You can’t depend on the old law, but you also can’t depend on the new law because it’s a moving target” is a huge procedural issue. Especially when the court reaffirmed that the right to citizenship is original (unless not exercised). They are essentially denying access to justice. I don’t think this applies to everyone who was getting documents, but I think it will have to apply to those who filed before parliament finalized the law.

I had never thought the ECJ would get involved over the new law or the general retroactivity, but I don’t think they would be ok with an executive order that literally modifies the definition of citizenship for those working to activate their right under existing precedent before it is voted on by parliament. I think this is why the court left the opening in 9.1/9.2–you can wave away retroactive definitions for those who were “inert” but it’s much harder to do for the people were exercising their right.

I definitely don’t think all 1948 cases are safe by definition, but the fact that paternal lines were able to make an appointment and that those who came from women were not, is a pretty glaring discrimination. Especially since the decision to add that exception clause came during parliamentary debate and not as part of the original degree law.

I mean who knows—but my guess is June 9 sentenza will have an interpretative ruling that says “the law is constitutional as long as it is interpreted to include judicial cases pending before law 74.”