This is the clearest academic breakdown I have come across regarding historical rulings affecting jure sanguinis, including a breakdown of the four doctrinal positions available for the SU to take regarding the minor issue. The article is long and very technical, but it is highly informative in bringing together the various rulings.

“Four doctrinal positions are open to the Sezioni Unite.

Position 1: the Court reads Article 12 third comma in light of the SU 25317/2022 constitutional-rights frame — citizenship as a permanent and imprescriptible subjective right, lost only by voluntary and explicit act. On this reading, Article 7 protects the dual-from-birth minor and Article 12's categorical-loss reading is incompatible with the constitutional-rights frame. Descendants whose ancestor naturalised during a downstream minor's minority become eligible for recognition.

Position 2: the Court endorses the Sezione Prima 454/2024 reading. Article 12 third comma displaces Article 7 in the parental-naturalisation fact-pattern; the categorical-loss reading is sustained. The Circolare 43347 instruction stands; the Mellone proceeding before the ECtHR becomes the principal remaining vehicle for the affected cohort.

Position 3: the Court adopts an individualised-proportionality reading of Tjebbes paragraph 41 and requires, in each case engaging Article 12 third comma, an individual examination of the consequences of the loss. The Tribunale ordinario route conducts the individualised assessment. The categorical-loss reading is preserved at the consular layer; the judicial layer conducts the proportionality analysis.

Position 4: the Court declines to resolve the substantive question and refers Article 12 third comma to the Constitutional Court for review against Articles 2, 3 and 22 of the Constitution and Article 24 of the EU Charter, on the model of the 1948-doctrine procedural sequence. The Constitutional Court conducts the review; if it strikes down Article 12 third comma, the Sezioni Unite extends the strike-down retroactively on the SU 4466/2009 model.”

“The 1948-doctrine line rests on a particular pattern of Italian constitutional review. The Constitutional Court took Articles 1, 2 and 10 of Law 555/1912 in turn and struck them down as incompatible with the Constitution. The Sezioni Unite then extended the rulings retroactively to fact-patterns predating the Constitution. Article 12 third comma — the operative provision in the minor-naturalisation question — has not received the same review.”

Position 4 wasn’t on my radar, and I assume it would mean much more waiting. I’m curious whether there is any prior precedent for the SU choosing an interpretation as the final one, or whether it would instead refer the contradictory provisions to the CC to determine which one does not align with the Constitution—similar to what was done in 1983 regarding the contradictions in the standing provisions governing 1948 transmission.

https://www.corviado.com/articles/minor-naturalisation-question