“The conclusion can only be in favor of the appellant in the first instance, since neither in the challenged decision nor during the proceedings did the Administration present any elements indicating the reasons why the granting of Italian citizenship to the present respondent would not be ‘appropriate.’ The mere reference, contained in the decision itself, to a note from the Department of Public Security — which was neither attached to the act nor even partially disclosed during the proceedings — in no way allows the interested party to know the reasons for the refusal, nor does it allow this Court to assess the reliability of the elements on which that refusal was based.”
The Ministry, therefore, by invoking in its decision mere reasons of expediency and generically referring to the public interest entrusted to it — namely, the need to avoid “harm or disruption to the legal order” — without any concrete reference to unlawful or dangerous activities carried out by the applicant (however broadly such expressions may be interpreted), has violated the obligation to provide reasoning, which is incumbent upon it and which […] requires, at a minimum, a clear indication — even if briefly stated — of the reason preventing acceptance of the application, that is, the facts or suspicions underlying the refusal, so as to allow the applicant to challenge them in the full exercise of the rights guaranteed by Articles 24 and 113 of the Constitution.
Moreover, case law has consistently held that the decision granting citizenship, although a highly discretionary act (and therefore not subject to review as to the appropriateness of the choice), is not exempt from the duty to state reasons. Consequently, in judicial proceedings, the applicant may allege abuse of power against a refusal that is based on reasoning which finds no justification in the documents referred to per relationem.
Project funded by the European Union's Citizens,