CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 September 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24786/24 Sobia Ikram SANDHU against Italy lodged on 10 August 2024 communicated on 2 September 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant is a Pakistani national who was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2008. She has been officially recognised as a person with a disability by the Italian National Institute of Social Security (INPS). On 6 May 2024, after residing lawfully in Italy for more than ten years, the applicant submitted a request for Italian citizenship under Article 9(f) of Law no. 91 of 1992. Due to her mental condition, she was unable to obtain and attach the certificate attesting to the required level of proficiency in the Italian language, as mandated by domestic law for such applications (Article   9.1 of Law no. 91 of 1992). On 10 May 2024, the applicant received a communication, via the online platform designated for the submission and monitoring of citizenship applications, which stated that her application had been rejected on the ground that the language certificate was missing. It was further specified that the rejection of an online application did not constitute a definitive administrative act, but rather a procedural measure and, as such, was not subject to judicial review. The applicant complains, under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8, that the Italian legislation, which requires all applicants for citizenship to produce a language proficiency certificate without allowing for any exemption or reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, results in discrimination against persons with disabilities who, due to their condition, are unable to meet the language requirement, thereby effectively excluding them from access to citizenship. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there an effective remedy available to challenge the rejection of her citizenship application?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination when applying for Italian citizenship on the ground of her disability, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention? If so, was such difference in treatment objectively and reasonably justified? In particular, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it proportionate to that aim (see, Genovese v. Malta , no. 53124/09, 11   October   2011, and Zeggai v.   France , no.   12456/19, 13   October   2022; see also, Abo v. Estonia (dec.), no.   29295/22, 17   September   2024)?   The parties are asked to describe the domestic legal framework, also in view of the Constitutional Court’s judgment no.   25/2025 of   30 January   2025, which declared unconstitutional Article 9.1 of Law no.   91 of   1992, and to indicate the current situation of the applicant.