The number of foreign spouses applying for Italian citizenship by marriage has surged dramatically in the United Kingdom following Brexit. However, this trend extends far beyond the UK, as increasing numbers of spouses of Italian nationals worldwide are considering the iure matrimonii route to secure an Italian passport. While this pathway offers a valuable opportunity for many, the mandatory B1-level Italian language exam remains a formidable barrier, particularly for native English speakers, for whom mastering the language poses a significant challenge. Among those seeking citizenship, a considerable number face additional hurdles, such as advanced age or cognitive impairments, rendering them incapable of passing the required exam. Until now, the rigid application of this requirement has led to the systematic exclusion of individuals who, due to medically certified disabilities, are simply unable to meet this linguistic criterion. However, a recent landmark ruling by the Italian Constitutional Court has significantly altered the legal landscape, striking down the blanket imposition of the language test in cases where applicants can demonstrate a legitimate and insurmountable inability to learn Italian. This judgment marks a turning point in the evolution of Italian citizenship law, reaffirming fundamental constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination, and bringing the legislative framework governing citizenship in line with international human rights obligations in the interpretation, reaffirming the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Italian Constitution.
If you are considering applying for Italian citizenship through the administrative procedure, whether by marriage or residence, and wish to explore the options available for your case, feel free to contact me. Together with the team of lawyers I work with, I will be pleased to provide you with legal support for your citizenship application, assist in requesting an exemption from the Italian language test if applicable, and handle the preparation of all necessary documents, including translations and legalisations.
Italy’s Constitutional Court has upended the rules on language requirements for citizenship by marriage and naturalisation, redefining the legal landscape. Notably, this decision stands in stark contrast to the prevailing legislative trend in the Italian Parliament, where recent proposals have sought to tighten the eligibility criteria for Italian citizenship and impose further restrictions on the naturalisation process.
With Judgment No. 25/2025, the Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional Article 9.1 of Law No. 91 of 5 February 1992, insofar as it fails to provide an exemption from the Italian language proficiency requirement for citizenship applicants who are objectively unable to acquire the necessary linguistic competence due to age, illness, or disabilities certified by a public healthcare authority. This ruling represents a crucial turning point in Italian nationality law, affirming the need for a more equitable approach by ensuring that individuals with severe physical or cognitive impairments are not unjustly excluded from the naturalisation process or the acquisition of citizenship by marriage solely due to an unattainable linguistic requirement.
The Case: A Matter of Violated Constitutional Rights
The case in question involved a foreign national whose application for Italian citizenship had been denied due to her inability to meet the B1 language requirement. The applicant, however, presented medical documentation attesting to a severe cognitive impairment that rendered her incapable of learning the language at the required level. The Regional Administrative Court of Emilia-Romagna (TAR), before which the case was initially brought, referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, raising concerns about the potential violation of fundamental constitutional principles. The rigid application of this provision led to an indiscriminate denial of access to citizenship for individuals with permanent and medically recognised cognitive impairments, raising serious concerns about its compatibility with constitutional principles of equality and proportionality. The TAR referred the matter to the Constitutional Court, questioning the legitimacy of imposing a uniform linguistic requirement without exceptions, given the applicant’s documented disabilities.
To provide a legal context for this issue, it is essential to note that the requirement to pass an Italian language test is a relatively recent addition. In fact, the contested provision—Article 9.1 of Law No. 91 of 1992—was introduced through Decree-Law No. 113 of 2018 and later converted into Law No. 132 of 2018. It established that foreign nationals applying for Italian citizenship through marriage or naturalisation must demonstrate an “adequate knowledge of the Italian language, not lower than level B1 of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).” This requirement could be fulfilled either through the possession of a recognised educational qualification issued by an accredited institution or by obtaining certification from an officially recognised language certification body. The provision made no distinction between applicants based on their physical or cognitive abilities, nor did it contemplate any exemptions for individuals with disabilities that precluded them from acquiring such linguistic competence.
By enforcing a uniform rule for all citizenship applicants, the law failed to account for the reality that some individuals are physically incapable of meeting the requirement. The ruling underscored that imposing a rigid language proficiency standard without exceptions constitutes an unjustifiable and disproportionate barrier, particularly for the most vulnerable individuals.
Aligning Italy with European Legal Standards
The Constitutional Court examined the case in light of the fundamental principles enshrined in the Italian Constitution, particularly Articles 2, 3, and 38. The judgment emphasised that the rigid application of the language requirement, without any exceptions for those suffering from severe disabilities, constituted an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the right to acquire citizenship. The Court underscored that citizenship is not merely an administrative formality but a status that carries profound legal and social implications, entitling individuals to full participation in the civic life of the nation. Consequently, imposing a linguistic prerequisite that certain individuals are physically incapable of fulfilling was deemed contrary to the principle of substantive equality enshrined in Article 3 of the Constitution.
The Court further emphasised that the contested provision contravenes the principle of reasonableness, as it imposes an obligation that certain applicants are factually incapable of fulfilling. While language proficiency serves as a tool for social integration, it cannot become a rigid and absolute condition that effectively prevents medically incapable individuals from accessing Italian nationality. The ruling also referenced international legal standards, particularly Article 18 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which mandates that states guarantee equal access to citizenship for persons with disabilities, prohibiting any discriminatory barriers that hinder their ability to acquire nationality on equal terms with other applicants.
In reaching its decision, the Court also considered relevant international legal instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which Italy ratified through Law No. 18 of 2009. Article 18 of the Convention explicitly affirms that persons with disabilities have the right to acquire and change their nationality on an equal basis with others, and states are required to ensure that disability is not used as a justification for denying or restricting this right. The Constitutional Court found that the contested provision, by failing to provide an exemption for individuals with severe cognitive or physical impairments, placed Italy in potential breach of its international obligations.
But not only does this ruling mark a turning point in Italian citizenship law, it also brings Italy into closer alignment with the legal frameworks of other European countries, where language requirements for naturalisation are counterbalanced by exemptions for individuals facing insurmountable obstacles due to age, illness, or cognitive impairments. In its reasoning, the Constitutional Court conducted a comparative analysis of European legislation, highlighting how most states that impose linguistic integration requirements also recognise the necessity of exceptions to prevent undue discrimination against individuals with severe disabilities.
In France, applicants for naturalisation who suffer from conditions that preclude them from undergoing language assessment may be exempted upon presentation of a medical certificate attesting to their disability. Germany follows a similar approach, relieving individuals of the language requirement when a physical or mental impairment prevents them from attaining the required proficiency. Likewise, in the United Kingdom, exemptions are granted to those with long-term physical or psychological conditions that make it impossible to acquire English proficiency or obtain certification, provided their circumstances are formally recognised by a medical professional.
The Court underscored that while linguistic competence remains a fundamental element of naturalisation across Europe, states have widely acknowledged that strict application of language requirements must be balanced against the principles of proportionality, equality, and fundamental rights protections. The complete absence of any exemption in Italian law for individuals with severe, documented disabilities placed Italy in a position of clear misalignment with prevailing European legal standards.
As a matter of fact, the ruling declared Article 9.1 unconstitutional insofar as it did not allow for an exemption from the language requirement for individuals who, due to their age, medical conditions, or disabilities, are objectively and permanently incapable of attaining the required linguistic competence. The Court determined that such individuals must be exempted upon presentation of a valid medical certification issued by a recognised public healthcare authority. In doing so, the judgment aligns the legal framework governing citizenship with the broader principles of inclusivity and non-discrimination that underpin both domestic and international law.
Exposing the Contradictions in the Italian Legal System
Furthermore, the ruling exposes an inherent contradiction within Italy’s own legal system. While the Italian immigration framework already includes exemptions from language requirements for foreign nationals applying for long-term EU residence permits and those subject to integration agreements, no such safeguard had been provided in the realm of citizenship acquisition—despite the latter carrying significantly greater legal and social consequences. The Court found this discrepancy both illogical and constitutionally inconsistent, reinforcing the need for a coherent and rights-based approach across all aspects of nationality and immigration law.
By recognising the necessity of exemptions and bringing Italian law into line with comparative European practice, the ruling not only eliminates a discriminatory gap but also establishes a new standard of legal fairness. Citizenship must not be reduced to a bureaucratic obstacle course, especially for those who, due to severe medical conditions, lack the capacity to meet rigid formal requirements. In this sense, the judgment is not merely a corrective measure but a milestone in ensuring that Italian citizenship remains an inclusive and accessible right, rather than an insurmountable privilege.
Implications for the Ruling
For thousands of foreign spouses who had previously faced an insurmountable barrier due to medical conditions beyond their control, this decision paves the way for a more equitable path to citizenship. The ruling also sets a precedent that could potentially influence future legislative reforms in the sector of immigration and nationality law, particularly regarding the rights of individuals with disabilities. Moreover, it underscores the role of the Constitutional Court as a safeguard against legislative provisions that, albeit neutral in their wording, produce discriminatory effects when applied rigidly and without regard to individual circumstances.
In a broader context, this ruling may serve as a catalyst for further reflection on the balance between integration requirements and fundamental human rights. While the Italian government has justified the language requirement as a means of ensuring that new citizens possess a minimum level of linguistic and cultural integration, the Court’s decision reaffirms that integration cannot come at the expense of fundamental rights. Citizenship laws must not impose insurmountable obstacles on those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to meet certain formal requirements. This ruling represents a step forward in ensuring that Italian citizenship remains accessible to all individuals who have a genuine and legitimate connection to the country, while also maintaining a commitment to principles of fairness, equality, and respect for human dignity.
As a result of this decision, the Italian legislature will now be required to amend the legal framework governing citizenship acquisition, by introducing a specific exemption from the language requirement for individuals who can provide certified medical proof of their inability to learn Italian. This exemption is expected to be modeled after existing provisions applicable to holders of the EU long-term residence permit, which already includes exceptions for individuals with severe learning disabilities. By aligning its citizenship laws with international human rights standards and best practices in other European countries, Italy will ensure that its nationality framework does not exclude individuals on the basis of conditions beyond their control.
The Court emphasised that Italy must align its citizenship laws with international human rights standards, ensuring that disability is never a basis for exclusion from fundamental rights.
What This Judgment Changes: Legal and Procedural Implications
- Introduction of a Medical Exemption for the Language Requirement Following this ruling, the Italian government must amend citizenship application procedures to introduce a formal exemption for applicants who can provide certified medical evidence proving they cannot acquire Italian language proficiency due to disabilities, severe illnesses, or age-related cognitive impairments.
The Court suggested that the existing exemption model applied to long-term residence permits (Permesso di Soggiorno UE per Soggiornanti di Lungo Periodo) should be used as a reference. Currently, foreigners applying for long-term residence are exempted from the language requirement if they can prove serious disabilities affecting their ability to learn Italian.
- Alignment with European Standards Italy was one of the few EU countries that did not offer any language requirement exemption for disabled citizenship applicants. The ruling now brings Italian nationality law in line with France, Germany, and the UK, where applicants unable to meet language requirements due to medical conditions can receive exemptions upon providing appropriate medical certification.
- Greater Recognition of Disability Rights in Citizenship Law This judgment marks a fundamental shift in Italy’s approach to nationality law and disability rights. It sets a legal precedent that could be used to challenge other restrictive rules that disproportionately impact individuals with disabilities. By explicitly recognizing the right of disabled individuals to seek citizenship without facing unreasonable obstacles, the ruling strengthens Italy’s constitutional and human rights framework.
What Changes Now?
With this very recent ruling, the Italian government is now faced with the obligation to amend citizenship application procedures to introduce an exemption from the language test for individuals who, through medical certification issued by public health authorities, can prove that they suffer from conditions preventing them from acquiring Italian language proficiency. This exemption brings Italy in line with best practices already established in other European countries, such as France, Germany, and the UK, where specific waivers exist for disabled applicants.
However, as of now, there have been no official announcements regarding how the Italian legislature intends to modify the current law to comply with the Constitutional Court’s decision. The ruling has created a legal vacuum that will require swift legislative intervention to ensure that citizenship applications from individuals with disabilities are not unfairly rejected under an unconstitutional framework.
Beyond its immediate legal implications, the judgment reinforces broader constitutional and human rights principles, affirming that disability cannot serve as grounds for exclusion from fundamental rights. It further underscores the obligation of public institutions to accommodate vulnerable individuals, reaffirming that while linguistic competence is a key indicator of integration, it must not become an insurmountable obstacle to naturalisation when its attainment is objectively impossible.
A Precedent for Future Challenges?
This ruling goes beyond a mere procedural adjustment by questioning the idea that integration can be determined through rigid and uniform standards. By recognising that inflexible legal requirements can lead to systemic exclusion, the decision highlights the need for a more adaptable and rights-focused approach to citizenship policies.
As Italy moves towards implementing the necessary legislative changes, the ruling opens a broader conversation about how naturalisation laws should evolve to reflect a modern, inclusive society. It also raises pressing questions about whether other procedural barriers to citizenship, particularly those affecting vulnerable groups, should be reconsidered in light of constitutional protections.
Ultimately, this case stands as a testament to the role of constitutional review in defending fundamental rights, ensuring that legal requirements do not become insurmountable barriers for those who, through no fault of their own, cannot meet them. Whether this decision will spark broader reforms or remain an isolated correction in an otherwise restrictive system remains to be seen.
