With an order dated May 30, 2024, the Regional Administrative Court (T.A.R.) for Emilia-Romagna, Parma branch, raised a question of constitutional legitimacy regarding Articles 2, 3, 10, and 38 of the Constitution, as well as Article 9.1 of Law no. 91 of February 5, 1992 («New provisions on citizenship»). The question arose within a case brought before the court in which the petitioner’s application for Italian citizenship had been denied due to insufficient knowledge of the Italian language.

The contested provision specifically makes the granting of Italian citizenship to a foreigner or stateless person conditional—among other legal requirements—on possessing an adequate knowledge of the Italian language, not lower than level B1, in accordance with the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

The referring judge questioned the constitutionality of applying this requirement to individuals who, due to personal physical and/or cognitive impairments, are incapable of demonstrating such linguistic knowledge.

The Constitutional Court, in Judgment No. 25/2025, accepted the referring court’s reasoning, issuing a partially favorable (additive) ruling and declaring the unconstitutionality of the norm insofar as it fails to exempt applicants suffering from serious limitations in language learning ability «resulting from age, illness, or disability, certified by public healthcare institutions».

The Court preferred an assessment based on the classical test of reasonableness, noting that in this case the situation of the petitioner was wrongly treated as identical to that of individuals who do not face such difficulties—cases that «[…] require a differentiated regulation with exemption from the language requirement». From this perspective, there is no doubt that the principle of formal equality under Article 3(1) of the Constitution is violated, given that personal conditions unquestionably include disability.

Finally, according to the Court, the issue can also be examined in light of the objective impossibility for the petitioner to achieve the required level of language proficiency—thereby violating one of the corollaries of the principle of reasonableness, expressed in the maxim ad impossibilia nemo tenetur (“no one is bound to do the impossible”).

 

(Comment by Bruno Pitingolo)