Avv. Fabio Loscerbo: According to the Tuscany Administrative Court, evidence of living in Italy may not cure a gap in registered residence for citizenship https://ift.tt/c94Pwte According to the Tuscany Administrative Court, evidence of living in Italy may not cure a gap in registered residence for citizenship Ten years of living and working in Italy is not necessarily the same as ten years of legal residence for the purpose of citizenship by naturalisation. The distinction is particularly important where a municipality has cancelled a foreign resident's registration because the person was deemed untraceable. The Regional Administrative Court for Tuscany, Section II, judgment no. 1 of 5 January 2026, upheld a refusal arising from a gap in the applicant's municipal residence record. The case before the court The applicant had requested Italian citizenship under Article 9(1)(f) of Law 91/1992. His municipal records showed a gap between 22 December 2015 and 9 February 2017, following cancellation for untraceability. To demonstrate continued presence in Italy, he submitted documents concerning work, accommodation and communications with the local police and municipality. The Prefecture of Prato declared the citizenship application inadmissible because the required continuity of legal residence was not established. The applicant challenged the decision, arguing that he had in fact remained in Italy and that his working and accommodation documents demonstrated his presence. What the TAR decided The court dismissed the appeal. Under Article 1(2) of Presidential Decree 572/1993, legal residence for citizenship requires compliance with the rules on immigration status and municipal registration. The judgment held that evidence of actual physical presence, while potentially relevant to other issues, did not replace the missing anagraphic registration in the circumstances of the case. The judges also examined a purported municipal document offered to prove a period of residence. It lacked the features of a formal residence certificate, including the necessary identification, signature or certain dating, and could not in any event cover the prolonged gap. The court therefore found no basis to annul the Prefecture's refusal. Why the distinction is practical Municipal residence registration is an administrative record of a person's residence, while a residence permit establishes a separate aspect of the foreign national's legal position. Neither a valid permit nor tax and wage records automatically guarantees that all ten years required for naturalisation are reflected in the municipal register. This is particularly relevant for people who move frequently, work seasonally, live with relatives or change address without promptly updating the municipality. The judgment does not mean that an incorrect municipal cancellation is immune from legal challenge. Where the administration made a mistake, the legality and possible correction of the registration must be investigated through the appropriate administrative or judicial procedures. Nor does it address all possible situations involving persons without fixed accommodation, for whom lawful conventional-address registration can be relevant under different facts. Documents to check before applying The most useful precaution is to obtain a historical residence certificate from the relevant municipality or municipalities, covering the entire statutory period. Applicants should check any deletion for untraceability, periods of registration abroad, movements between towns and the dates of new registrations. Employment and accommodation records can support an investigation into an erroneous cancellation, but they should not be treated as a substitute for the official record in a citizenship application. If a gap exists, it is important to address it before relying on the ten-year period. A lawyer should examine the underlying municipal decision, notifications and available remedies. Where an inadmissibility decision has already been issued, its reasoning, date of notification and the competent court must be checked promptly. The broader lesson The court did not hold that residence permits, employment or social integration are irrelevant. It clarified the particular documentary and legal meaning of continuous residence for Article 9 naturalisation. Citizenship applications should therefore be prepared as a chronological legal record, not merely as a narrative of years spent in Italy. Judicial source: TAR Toscana, Section II, judgment of 5 January 2026, no. 1. Full judgment (Italian). Avv. Fabio Loscerbo Lawyer admitted to plead 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. https://ift.tt/TexE7Wy