According to the Lazio Administrative Court, marriage-based Italian citizenship refusals ordinarily belong before the civil courts

A rejection of an application for Italian citizenship does not always have to be challenged before an administrative court. The Regional Administrative Court for Lazio (TAR Lazio), Fifth-bis Section, judgment no. 3663 of 27 February 2026, dismissed a challenge to a refusal of citizenship based on marriage because it lacked jurisdiction. The judgment provides a practical warning to families: identifying the legal basis of the application and the competent court is essential.

What happened?

The applicant had sought Italian citizenship under Article 5 of Law no. 91/1992, the provision governing acquisition of citizenship through marriage. The Prefecture of Reggio Emilia rejected the application by a decision dated 10 December 2025. The applicant then challenged that refusal before the TAR Lazio.

Rather than determining whether the Prefecture had correctly assessed the applicant's circumstances, the judges first examined jurisdiction. They concluded that this category of dispute concerned a subjective right and belonged before the ordinary courts, not before the administrative judge.

The legal reasoning

The TAR distinguished citizenship based on marriage from discretionary naturalisation. When the statutory requirements under Article 5 are satisfied, the person's claim is generally treated as a subjective right, and the administration's role is to verify those conditions. This means that the judicial remedy ordinarily lies before the civil judiciary. The judgment referred, among other authorities, to Council of State, Third Section, judgment no. 2768 of 29 April 2019.

The decision therefore declared the proceedings inadmissible for lack of administrative jurisdiction and identified the ordinary court as the competent judge. It referred to Article 11 of the Italian Code of Administrative Procedure, which regulates the preservation of certain effects when proceedings are pursued before the competent court under the prescribed conditions.

What this decision does not establish

The court did not grant citizenship and did not determine that the applicant had fulfilled all the requirements. Its ruling dealt with jurisdiction. Nor should this principle be understood as meaning that every citizenship case follows the same route. Applications based on marriage and discretionary naturalisation have different legal characteristics; particular decisions concerning national security may also raise distinct jurisdictional issues.

Practical guidance for families

Before challenging a refusal, the applicant should collect the original application, the complete refusal decision, proof of notification and the relevant marriage and civil-status documents. It is important to identify whether the application was made under Article 5 or under a different provision of Law no. 91/1992 and why the administration rejected it.

Where the issue is documentary inconsistency, a missing requirement or a contested legal interpretation, the possible remedies must be assessed in light of the actual decision. Commencing proceedings before the wrong court may delay the determination of the underlying right, even where procedural law allows transfer to the competent jurisdiction in defined circumstances.

It is also unwise to assume that an informal request to the Prefecture will suspend a judicial deadline. Dates of notification and the rules applicable to the chosen proceedings require prompt examination.

Conclusion

The lesson of judgment no. 3663/2026 is procedural but important: a refusal issued by a public authority does not automatically fall within administrative-court jurisdiction. For marriage-based citizenship claims, the nature of the right asserted is decisive. Choosing the correct judicial route is an essential part of effective legal protection.

Judgment: TAR Lazio, Fifth-bis Section, 27 February 2026, no. 3663, President Rizzetto, Reporting Judge Mattei. Full text. Legal references: Law no. 91/1992, Article 5; Code of Administrative Procedure, Article 11.

---

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer qualified to appear before the Italian Court of Cassation
Registered in the Italian Chamber of Deputies’ Register of Interest Representatives in the field of Immigration
Lobbyist registered in the European Union Transparency Register no. 280782895721-36 in the field of Migration and Asylum
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428
Article prepared with the assistance of AI tools, under the author’s direction, review and editorial responsibility.