This is the stage at which what has been won is most often lost, and the stage for which parties are least prepared.
An ecclesiastical sentence of nullity does not of itself take effect in Italian law. Recognition requires separate proceedings — delibazione — before the territorially competent Court of Appeal, under the 1984 Agreement revising the Concordat.
Jurisdiction lies with the Court of Appeal in whose district is situated the Comune where the concordat marriage was entered in the civil registers — not, as is sometimes assumed, the place of the wedding, which coincides only where the two occurred in the same municipality.
What the Court examines
The Court does not re-examine the merits of the canonical cause. It may not conduct its own investigation into the ground of nullity, nor reassess the evidence taken before the ecclesiastical tribunal. It verifies that the ecclesiastical judge had jurisdiction, that the parties were afforded the right to sue and to defend in a manner not inconsistent with the fundamental principles of Italian law, and that recognition would not conflict with public policy.
Cohabitation as an obstacle
By the twin judgments of the Joint Divisions of 17 July 2014, nos. 16379 and 16380, cohabitation “as spouses” continued for at least three years from the wedding was held to constitute a situation of Italian public policy barring recognition.
That rule is no longer applied without qualification. Since Cass. no. 17910 of 2022 and no. 149 of 2023, the First Division has drawn a distinction according to the nature of the defect actually found. Where the defect matters only to canon law, prolonged cohabitation bars recognition; where it corresponds to a ground of invalidity known also to Italian law — in particular the incapacity of art. 120 of the Civil Code, to which the incapacity to consent of can. 1095, nn. 2 and 3 is assimilated — the sentence is recognisable however long the cohabitation lasted.
Cass. 27 May 2024 added that regard must be had to the defect as actually established in the ecclesiastical sentence rather than to its nomen iuris, and that the cohabitation is to be assessed by the features that matter in Italian law. Cass., First Division, order of 28 January 2025, no. 1999, confirmed the approach. The conflict within the Court’s own case law cannot be said to be settled.
Two further points matter in practice. Cohabitation is not taken notice of by the court on its own motion: it is a plea in the strict sense, which the respondent must raise in the defence on pain of forfeiture. And the outcome may turn on how the ground of nullity was pleaded and established — a matter that was marginal in the canonical process. A cause framed without regard to any of this may produce a sentence that is ineffective in Italy.