Supreme Court Ruling No. 13345/2025: Ideological Falsehood and Citizenship Income After the European Verdict

With the decision under review, the Supreme Court, Second Criminal Section, has annulled without referral the conviction imposed by the Court of Appeal of Genoa against a foreign citizen accused of making false declarations to obtain citizenship income. The heart of the matter revolves around the requirement of ten years of residence in Italy stipulated by art. 2 of Legislative Decree 4/2019: a condition that the Court of Justice of the European Union, with its ruling of 29 July 2024 (joined cases C-112/22 and C-223/22), deemed incompatible with Directive 2003/109/EC on long-term residents. Hence the need to re-read criminal provisions from a constitutionally and European law-oriented perspective.

The Regulatory Framework

The original framework for citizenship income provided that, in order to access the benefit, third-country nationals holding a long-term resident permit had to demonstrate ten years of continuous residence. Falsehoods concerning this prerequisite were criminally prosecuted under art. 7, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree 4/2019 (ideological falsehood pursuant to art. 483 of the Italian Criminal Code). However:

• art. 3 of the Italian Constitution mandates equal treatment between long-term residents and EU citizens;
• Directive 2003/109/EC, art. 11(d), prohibits unreasonable discrimination in social assistance matters;
• the CJEU has ruled the ten-year requirement illegitimate, eliminating its substantial relevance.

The Supreme Court's Maxim and its Meaning

In the context of false declarations aimed at obtaining citizenship income, the constitutionally and conventionally oriented interpretation of the provisions of the repealed art. 7, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree of 28 January 2019, no. 4, converted, with amendments, by Law 28 March 2019, no. 26, allows us to consider that the false attestation regarding the requirement of ten years of residence in Italy, required for third-country nationals holding the EU long-term resident permit by the previous art. 2 of the aforementioned decree, does not constitute, in light of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 29 July 2024, in joined cases C-112/22 and C-223/22, an element for the configuration of the crime. (Case prior to the ruling of the Constitutional Court no. 31 of 2025, which declared the partial unconstitutionality of art. 2, paragraph 1, letter a, no. 2, of the aforementioned decree).

The Court expressly refers to the principle of conforming interpretation: if a prerequisite for punishability has been removed from the legal system (or, as in this case, declared illegitimate at the European level), it can no longer serve as a basis for constituting the crime of falsehood. It follows that the conduct, at most, remains relevant in administrative proceedings but is no longer criminally punishable, lacking the "essential element" of the typical offense.

Applicative Aspects and Impact on Practice

The dictum opens up important scenarios:

• Pending cases for similar charges must be resolved with acquittal pursuant to art. 129 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure;
• irrevocable convictions may legitimize requests for review or execution proceedings;
  
• the criminal interpreter is required to verify, before establishing intent, the normative persistence of the declared requirement;
• the dialogue between the domestic judge, the Constitutional Court, and the CJEU is strengthened, with disruptive effects on the principle of legality (art. 25 of the Italian Constitution) in favour of the defendant.

Conclusions

Ruling No. 13345/2025 confirms how criminal law cannot disregard the constant control of the EU compatibility of criminal provisions. When the prerequisite that underpins the offense ceases to exist, the court of legitimacy must acknowledge the new hierarchy of sources and neutralize the application of the sanction. A strong signal that, beyond the specific case, reaffirms the primacy of EU law and the guarantee function of the criminal judge against undue punitive extensions.