The EU Court rejects the 10-year residency requirement for citizenship income: who can appeal and what changes.
The Court of Justice of the European Union places a heavy point on one of the most discussed requirements of the old citizenship income: requiring ten years of residence in Italy from beneficiaries of international protection to access the subsidy constitutes indirect discrimination. The decision, pronounced in case C-747/22 against INPS, concerns the case of a foreign citizen entitled to subsidiary protection whose benefit was revoked after an administrative check.
The point, for the Luxembourg judges, is not just formal. The ten-year requirement applied to everyone, Italians and foreigners, but in practice it mainly affected those who arrived from third countries and had obtained international protection in Italy. This is exactly where indirect discrimination arises: an apparently neutral rule that produces very different effects on different categories of people.
The case started from Italy
The controversy arises from the revocation of citizenship income from a foreign citizen who is a beneficiary of subsidiary protection. The INPS had ascertained that the man did not comply with the requirement established by Italian legislation: residence in Italy for at least ten years, of which the last two were continuous.
The beneficiary contested the decision before the Italian judge, who asked the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify whether that requirement could be compatible with European law. The answer arrived today, 7 May 2026, and it is clear: for beneficiaries of international protection, that time constraint constitutes indirect discrimination prohibited by Union law.
Because the 10 year requirement was deemed discriminatory
According to the Court, citizenship income falls within the scope of the principle of equal treatment between national citizens and beneficiaries of international protection, both with regard to access to employment and the right to a minimum income.
The logic is clear: one cannot expect such long roots from those who, by definition, had to leave their country and rebuild their lives elsewhere. The ten-year requirement therefore ended up disproportionately excluding foreigners, even when formally the law was written equally for everyone.
The Court also rejected the Italian government’s argument that the measure entailed a significant economic and administrative burden. For European judges, the cost of the benefit is not enough to justify a difference in treatment that affects a right protected by Union law.
What can change now
The ruling does not bring back citizenship income, a measure that is now outdated in the Italian welfare system. But it can have concrete consequences on past cases, especially for those who have had their benefits denied or revoked for failing to comply with the ten-year residency requirement.
The issue now is to understand what effects the decision will produce in the open proceedings and possible appeals. CAF, charities and lawyers will have to evaluate individual situations: it is not enough to be a foreigner or holder of international protection to automatically obtain back pay, but the sentence offers a strong argument to those who had been excluded precisely because of that requirement.
It is a decision destined to also weigh on future social policies. Every new income support instrument will have to deal with a principle now reiterated by Luxembourg: access to assistance and integration measures cannot be constructed with criteria which, although neutral on paper, disproportionately penalize those enjoying international protection.
A sentence that reopens the welfare dossier
Citizenship income remains one of the most divisive issues in recent Italian politics. For years it has been described as a measure against poverty, a tool for reintegration into work, an ideological battleground and a symbol of a certain welfare model. Now the EU Court intervenes on one of its most controversial clauses, the one which linked access to the subsidy to a very long period of presence on the national territory.
The issue is not just about the past. It touches on a broader issue: to what extent can a State make access to economic aid dependent on the duration of residence? And when does a requirement designed to reward rootedness instead become a discriminatory filter?
The Court’s response is destined to be a lesson: social need and the integration process cannot be subordinated to such a long wait as to exclude the very people that that support should help to integrate into the country.
