By Avv. Michele Vitale - Italyget.com

Gain an understanding of this Palermo ruling issued February 12th and the power of pre-reform evidence under Law 74/2025.

Palermo Success: How a single PEC saved a post-reform citizenship case

This content is being published today following its release within the 'Natitaliani' network of Italian citizenship lawyers, of which I am a member.

The entry into force of Law 74/2025 (formerly Decree-Law 36/2025) has introduced significant procedural hurdles for many Italian citizenship jure sanguinis claims. However, a recent landmark ruling from the Court of Palermo (issued on February 12, 2026) provides a critical roadmap for navigating the new "safeguard clauses."

The Case Facts

The case involved a family of five applicants from Argentina. Their court petition was officially registered (iscrizione a ruolo) at 7:29 PM on March 28, 2025—just hours after the new reform was published in the Official Gazette. Under the strict interpretation of Law 74/2025, this filing would typically be subject to the new restrictions.

The Turning Point: The March 25 PEC

The success of the case hinged on Article 1, letter a) of the new law, which exempts applicants who submitted their application to the consulate by March 27, 2025.

The Court of Palermo recognized the citizenship of the applicants based on two key pieces of evidence:

1. Documented "Prenot@mi" Failures: The family provided proof of unsuccessful attempts to book appointments on the consular portal between October 2024 and March 2025.
2. The PEC Strategy: Most importantly, a Certified Email (P.E.C.) was sent to the Consulate on March 25, 2025, containing a formal "out-of-court notice requesting an appointment."

The Court’s Reasoning

The judge ruled that the PEC, combined with the documented portal failures, constituted a formal manifestation of the intent to file the application before the March 27 deadline. This satisfied the requirement for the safeguard clause, even though the actual court proceedings began after the reform took effect.

Why This Matters

This ruling highlights a significant interpretative divide within the Court of Palermo - and Italy as a whole. While some sections have adopted more restrictive views, The ruling issued on February 12, 2026 prioritizes the protection of the applicant's rights against systemic consular malfunctions. It underscores the vital importance of having a documented "pre-reform" trail when pursuing citizenship claims in the current legal climate.

For those wishing to review the full anonymized judgment in both Italian and English, the complete breakdown is available on the ItalyGet blog.

Full Analysis & Judgment: Palermo Success Post-Reform: Interpretation Trends (English & Italian) – ItalyGet

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Por Avv. Michele Vitale - Itayget.com

BLUF — Resumo Executivo

Uma decisão do Tribunal de Bolonha, publicada em 20 de maio de 2026, rejeitou uma ação de cidadania jure sanguinis protocolada após o prazo limite de 27 de março de 2025. A decisão confirma que o limite geracional de segundo grau (avô/avó) se aplica estritamente aos casos protocolados após o corte, e esclarece que a mera inscrição na lista de espera consular (fila do Prenot@mi) não ativa a proteção da cláusula de salvaguarda.

Rejeições do Tribunal de Bolonha: Contexto e Precedentes

Esta decisão representa a segunda decisão negativa (de que se tem conhecimento) do Tribunal de Bolonha desde a implementação da reforma. Ela segue uma rejeição anterior analisada nesta visão geral das decisões recentes. Esses dois indeferimentos seguem uma única decisão aparentemente positiva que circulou na internet, a qual encarei com ceticismo nesta análise detalhada dos padrões de prova.

O Limite Geracional e a Aplicabilidade do Prazo Limite

A ação foi registrada em 28 de março de 2025. Como o registro ocorreu após o prazo limite de 27 de março de 2025 (23:59 horário de Roma), as disposições do Artigo 3-bis da Lei 91/1992 (introduzidas pelo Decreto-Lei 36/2025) foram consideradas totalmente aplicáveis. Neste caso, a linhagem dos requerentes que remontava ao seu antepassado italiano excedia o segundo grau (atingindo o terceiro, quarto ou quinto grau), levando a uma rejeição direta.

Por que as Listas de Espera Consulares Não Estão Salvaguardadas

Os requerentes argumentaram que a sua inscrição prévia na fila online do consulado (lista de espera) deveria satisfazer a exceção de salvaguarda, que protege os processos administrativos preexistentes dos novos limites geracionais.

O Tribunal de Bolonha rejeitou explicitamente este argumento, declarando que:

(Tradução livre: "A mera comunicação de ter sido incluído nas listas de espera não é suficiente.")

De acordo com a decisão, a cláusula de salvaguarda exige um agendamento marcado e comunicado ao interessado pelo consulado competente ou município antes do prazo limite. Uma captura de tela (print) de uma vaga na fila não é legalmente equivalente a uma data de agendamento confirmada.

Conformidade com a Constituição e o Direito Europeu

O tribunal rejeitou todas as objeções de direito constitucional e da UE levantadas pela defesa dos requerentes, citando o recente Acórdão do Tribunal Constitucional nº 63/2026, publicado em 30 de abril de 2026. O Tribunal Constitucional validou a nova lei, afirmando que a intenção do legislador de exigir "vínculos efetivos com a República" (vincoli effettivi con la Repubblica) é legítima e que o princípio da confiança legítima (legittimo affidamento) não é violado para requerentes que ainda não possuem o status reconhecido.

Esta é apenas a opinião de um juiz em Bolonha e, como sabemos, a jurisprudência de mérito nacional sobre este ponto é bastante incerta e variada.

Há poucos dias, publiquei a notícia de duas decisões muito recentes do Tribunal de Nápoles que, pelo contrário, incluíram na exceção do Artigo 3-bis, alínea a-bis, até mesmo aqueles que, apesar de não terem sido incluídos nas "listas" do consulado, comprovaram ter feito várias tentativas de agendamento através do Portal Prenot@mi, seguidas do envio de igual número de e-mails solicitando agendamentos, enviados antes de 28 de março.

Em suma, a situação continua incerta e exige a máxima cautela.

Para um mergulho mais profundo, para baixar a sentença original completa e ler sua tradução integral em inglês, acesse o Tribunal de Bolonha Rejeita Pedido de Cidadania: Por Que a Lista de Espera do Prenot@mi Não é um Agendamento – Italyget

Perguntas Frequentes (FAQ)

• P: Isso afeta as ações protocoladas antes de 28 de março de 2025?
  • R: Não. Sob as regras de transição da Lei 74/2025, os casos protocolados antes do prazo limite continuam sendo regidos pela lei anterior e não estão sujeitos ao limite de segundo grau.
• P: A confirmação por e-mail do Prenot@mi de um agendamento marcado protege o requerente?
  • R: Sim. Se o consulado comunicou uma data específica para a apresentação dos documentos antes do prazo limite, esse caso está coberto pela exceção de salvaguarda. No entanto, uma confirmação de lista de espera não oferece essa proteção.

by Avv. Michele Vitale - Itayget.com

4.35 PM Edit : I now realize that the title contains a slight inaccuracy, that I cannot correct.
The title, as I intended it, should have been, “Consular Waiting List Prenot@mi Registrations Do Not Qualify as Appointments Under the New Law” - between brackets- to emphasize that this is just the opinion of a judge in Bologna and that, as we know, national merit case law is, on this point, rather uncertain and varied.

Just a few days ago, I published news of two very recent rulings by the Court of Naples that instead included within the exception of Article 3-bis, letter a-bis, even those who, despite not having been included on the consulate’s “lists,” had provided proof of having made several attempts to book through the Prenot@mi Portal, followed by the sending of an equal number of emails requesting appointments, sent before March 28.

In short, the situation remains uncertain and calls for the utmost caution.

BLUF — Bottom Line Up Front A ruling from the the Court of Bologna, published on May 20, 2026, dismissed a jure sanguinis citizenship lawsuit filed after the March 27, 2025 deadline. The decision confirms that the generational limit of the second degree (grandparent) applies strictly to cases filed after the cutoff, and clarifies that mere registration on the consular waiting list (Prenot@mi queue) does not trigger the safeguard clause protection.

Bologna Court Rejections: Context and Precedents This decision represents the second negative ruling (that we know of) from the Court of Bologna since the implementation of the reform. It follows a previous rejection analyzed in this overview of recent rulings. These two dismissals follow a single, seemingly positive ruling that had circulated online, which I met with skepticism in this detailed analysis of the evidence standards.

The Generational Limit and Cut-Off Applicability The lawsuit was registered on March 28, 2025. Since the registration occurred after the deadline of March 27, 2025 (23:59 Rome time), the provisions of Article 3-bis of Law 91/1992 (introduced by Decree-Law 36/2025) were held to be fully applicable. In this case, the claimants' lineage tracing back to their Italian ancestor exceeded the second degree (reaching the third, fourth, or fifth degree), leading to a direct rejection.

Why Consular Waiting Lists Are Not Safeguarded The claimants argued that their prior registration in the consulate's online queue (waiting list) should satisfy the safeguard exception, which protects pre-existing administrative processes from the new generational caps.

The Court of Bologna explicitly rejected this argument, stating that:

>

(English translation: "The mere communication of having been placed on the waiting lists is not sufficient.")

According to the ruling, the safeguard clause requires a scheduled appointment communicated to the interested party by the competent consular office or municipality before the deadline. A screenshot of a queue slot is not legally equivalent to a confirmed appointment date.

Constitutional and European Law Compliance The court rejected all constitutional and EU law objections raised by the claimants' counsel, citing the recent Constitutional Court Judgment No. 63/2026 published on April 30, 2026. The Constitutional Court validated the new law, stating that the legislature's intent to enforce "effective links with the Republic" (vincoli effettivi con la Repubblica) is legitimate and that the principle of legitimate expectation (legittimo affidamento) is not violated for applicants who do not yet hold recognized status.

FAQ

Q: Does this affect lawsuits filed before March 28, 2025? A: No. Under the transitional rules of Law 74/2025, cases filed before the deadline remain governed by the previous law and are not subject to the second-degree limit.

Q: Does a Prenot@mi email confirmation of a scheduled appointment protect an applicant? A: Yes. If the consulate communicated a specific date for a document presentation before the deadline, that case is covered by the safeguard exception. A waiting list confirmation, however, does not provide this protection.

For a deeper dive, to download the full original sentence and to read its full English translation check the Link to blog post

Legal disclaimer: The information provided above is for educational purposes and does not constitute formal legal advice.

by Avv. Michele Vitale - Italyget.com

Tribunals across Italy are reaching opposite conclusions on the same legal questions. Some are granting. Some are rejecting outright. Many are suspending and waiting. Two decisions from courts above this one — the Sezioni Unite of the Corte di Cassazione and a new session of the Corte Costituzionale scheduled for June 9 — will likely reshape everything that’s currently happening at the merits level.

What follows is analysis of a favorable outcome published today.

If you prefer to what my short video comment about it, check this link.

What the May 18th 2026 Naples Ruling Decided

A Naples specialized immigration section issued on May 18th a ruling granting recognition of Italian citizenship to a family of US-based petitioners. The case was filed well after the March 2025 reform took effect. The genealogical line ran to the fourth generation — far beyond the two-generation limit established by Art. 3-bis — and none of the standard carve-out exceptions applied (no Italian-only-citizen grandparent, no two-year Italian residency of a parent).

Before reading further: this is not a settled trend.

This landmark ruling was obtained by ILF Law Firm (Florence), with Avv. Michele Ambrogio serving as dominus and lead attorney of record. I contributed to the defense strategy in an advisory capacity. All credit for the brilliant conduct of the proceedings belongs to him and his firm.

Download the Full Ruling & Lead Counsel Resource

The complete official text of the Naples Court Ruling has been made available by the lead defense firm. If you would like to download the full PDF judgment for your review, please click the button below to retrieve it directly from their site:

Download the Full Naples Ruling (PDF) on ILF’s Site

The petitioners’ key evidence: documented attempts on the Prenot@mi portal at their relevant Italian consulate in the United States, followed by emails explicitly requesting appointments. All of this was sent in August 2024 — more than seven months before the March 27, 2025 deadline.

Under the plain text of the new law, this case should have been barred.

The operative paragraph of the ruling:

>

[English translation]

>

The analytical thread of the decision is: documented initiation of the consular process = legally sufficient. Administrative dysfunction = not chargeable to the petitioner.

The Higher-Court Architecture Supporting This Reasoning

These outcomes connect to two higher-court positions from the past month.

The Corte Costituzionale, in Sentenza 63/2026 (deposited April 30), upheld the reform’s general framework. But it explicitly declined to rule on one specific question, leaving it “impregiudicata”:

>

[English translation] > “The question remains unresolved — as it was extraneous to the referring court’s proceedings and therefore not raised — regarding the differentiation between those who received an appointment and those who initiated the recognition procedure but did not receive an appointment by 23:59 on March 27, 2025.”

The Constitutional Court drew one line. It did not draw the next one. Naples is drawing it at the merits level, for now.

On May 12, 2026, the Corte di Cassazione (First Civil Section, Ord. 13818/2026) added the procedural predicate:

>

[English translation] > “Standing to sue exists not only in cases of formal denial or delay, but also when impediments, difficulties, or prolonged obstacles prevent even the submission of the request to the competent Administration, since such a situation generates uncertainty over the person’s status and related rights and prerogatives.”

Why the Overall Picture Remains Genuinely Uncertain

The favourable Naples ruling and supportive language from both the Cassazione and the Consulta do not add up to a consolidated trend. They add up to a developing argument in a contested legal landscape.

Tribunals in Brescia and Ancona have been rejecting post-decree cases on the merits without waiting for higher-court guidance. Courts in Rome, Venice, and Caltanissetta have been suspending proceedings entirely — some explicitly citing the upcoming Sezioni Unite decision, others waiting on the June 9 Constitutional Court session. I will write more about them in my next blog posts.

Genova Confirms the National Suspension Pattern — Also Today, May 18th

Also issued today, May 18, 2026, is a significant order from the Tribunale Ordinario di Genova, Sezione XI Civile, which explicitly chose to suspend its own proceedings and schedule a new hearing for June 19, 2026 — precisely to await the outcomes from the two highest courts.

The Genova order is noteworthy for several reasons:

First, it confirms that the June 9 Constitutional Court session carries a specific question about the Prenot@mi gap — not just a general review of the reform. The Genova judge expressly references the pending referral from the Tribunale di Mantova (October 24, 2025, hearing calendared for June 9, 2026) and the Tribunale di Campobasso (February 2026, hearing not yet scheduled), both of which raised the precise question left open by Sentenza 63 at paragraph 9.1:

>

Second, the Genova order adds an element no other court has stated this clearly: the judge acknowledges that the petitioner in this specific case — unlike many others — has produced documentation of consular appointment attempts, even if “not absolute nor incontrovertible.” This is exactly the factual predicate that the Naples court acted on. Genova is not deciding yet, but it is explicitly flagging the evidentiary distinction.

Third, there is a hard deadline: the Genova judge notes the PNRR constraint requiring the court to issue its decision by June 30, 2026, regardless of whether the higher-court rulings have been published by then.

The operative language of the Genova order:

>

[English translation]
“It is considered appropriate to postpone the proceedings in order to await […] the possible publication of the ruling of the Sezioni Unite of the Court of Cassazione, following the oral argument of April 14, 2026, as well as any decision (or press release) of the Constitutional Court, following the hearing of June 9, 2026. In particular, it may be relevant to assess what the two Courts may affirm regarding the position of those who unsuccessfully attempted to obtain an appointment at the territorially competent Consulate.”

This is a national pattern, not an isolated choice. And June 9 has just become the date that every court in Italy is watching.

Those two upcoming decisions are the ones that matter most right now:

The June 9 Corte Costituzionale session may revisit or expand on the question explicitly left open in Sentenza 63 — the gap between “appointment received” and “process initiated but appointment never given.”

The Sezioni Unite of the Cassazione have two distinct referrals pending. The first, Ord. 17973/2024 (filed June 2024), addresses the “Minor Issue”: whether a child who held dual citizenship at birth retains Italian citizenship when a parent naturalizes during their minority — a question under Arts. 7 and 12 of the 1912 citizenship law that has paralyzed consular processing nationwide. The SSUU heard oral argument on April 14; no ruling has been published yet. The second, Ord. 20122/2025 (First Civil Section, July 2025), remitted to the SSUU the question of how Art. 3-bis applies — specifically noting that the underlying facts in that case “are situated temporally before the reform.”

Neither referral asks the SSUU directly to weigh Prenot@mi screenshots as evidence. But both touch foundational questions whose resolution will cascade downward: once the SSUU defines when Art. 3-bis applies and what citizenship rights survived the reform cutoff, every lower court’s evidentiary calculus on documented consular attempts will follow from those answers. Their decisions will bind every lower court in Italy.

Until both of those are published, every favorable merits ruling — including the Naples decision analyzed here — represents one court’s reading of an unresolved question, not settled law. The Naples reasoning is legally coherent and grounded in the gap the Consulta left open. It is also subject to being overtaken by events in the next few weeks.

Sources: Naples specialized immigration section ruling, May 18th, 2026; Trib. Genova, Sez. XI Civile, suspension order, May 18, 2026; Cass. Civ. I Sez., Ord. 13818/2026, published May 12, 2026; Corte Cost., Sent. 63/2026, deposited April 30, 2026.

Hola a todos. Soy Michele Vitale, un abogado italiano especializado en derecho de ciudadanía.

Hoy, 18 de mayo de 2026, la sección especializada de inmigración del Tribunal de Nápoles emitió un fallo que concede la ciudadanía italiana basándose en intentos documentados en el portal Prenot@mi (con correos electrónicos de seguimiento) realizados en agosto de 2024, es decir, antes de la fecha límite de la reforma de marzo de 2025. Según el texto estricto del Art. 3-bis de la nueva ley, este caso debería haber sido inadmisible. Sin embargo, el tribunal consideró que el inicio documentado del proceso consular es legalmente suficiente y que la disfunción administrativa no puede imputarse al peticionario.

Antes de considerar esto como una tendencia consolidada, es importante ser prudentes. En el panorama jurídico actual, la situación sigue siendo muy debatida. Mientras Nápoles concede, otros tribunales como los de Roma, Venecia y Génova (también con un auto de suspensión emitido hoy) están suspendiendo los procedimientos. Todos están a la espera de dos decisiones clave: la próxima sesión de la Corte Costituzionale del 9 de junio y la esperada decisión de las Sezioni Unite de la Cassazione.

He redactado un análisis jurídico detallado sobre la sentencia de Nápoles y lo que significa la postura de los tribunales superiores. También he incluido el enlace para descargar el fallo completo en PDF (obtenido por el abogado principal del caso, Avv. Michele Ambrogio).

Pueden leer el artículo completo traducido al español en mi blog aquí: Sentencia de Nápoles: Intentos de Prenot@mi y Emails de agosto de 2024 cumplen el plazo del Art. 3-bis, pero el panorama jurídico permanece completamente abierto

Quedo a su disposición en los comentarios para cualquier pregunta objetiva sobre el procedimiento.

Olá a todos. Sou Michele Vitale, um advogado italiano especializado em direito da cidadania.

Hoje, 18 de maio de 2026, a seção especializada de imigração do Tribunal de Nápoles emitiu uma decisão favorável, concedendo a cidadania italiana com base em tentativas documentadas no portal Prenot@mi (com e-mails de acompanhamento) realizadas em agosto de 2024 — portanto, bem antes do prazo da reforma de março de 2025. Pelo texto estrito do Art. 3-bis da nova lei, este caso deveria ter sido rejeitado. No entanto, o tribunal entendeu que o início documentado do processo consular é juridicamente suficiente e que a disfunção administrativa não pode ser imputada ao requerente.

Antes de interpretar isso como uma tendência consolidada, é preciso ter muita cautela. No atual cenário jurídico, a questão permanece amplamente debatida. Enquanto Nápoles concede, outros tribunais (como Roma, Veneza e Gênova) estão suspendendo os processos, aguardando duas decisões fundamentais: a sessão da Corte Costituzionale agendada para 9 de junho e a esperada decisão das Sezioni Unite da Cassazione.

Publiquei uma análise jurídica detalhada sobre os fundamentos da decisão de Nápoles e o panorama atual dos tribunais. No artigo, também disponibilizei o link para baixar a íntegra da decisão em PDF (conquistada pelo advogado principal do processo, Avv. Michele Ambrogio).

Vocês podem ler o artigo completo traduzido para o português no meu blog aqui: Decisão de Nápoles: Tentativas e e-mails do Prenot@mi a partir de agosto de 2024 cumprirem o prazo do Art. 3-bis, mas o cenário jurídico permanece totalmente aberto

Estou à disposição nos comentários para responder a dúvidas objetivas sobre o procedimento legal.

por Avv. Michele Vitale - Italyget.com

Quero compartilhar algo importante com esta comunidade, porque ultimamente tenho visto circular informações que podem levar as pessoas a tomar decisões erradas.

Comecemos pelo que realmente aconteceu. No final de março e no final de abril de 2026, o Tribunal de Brescia emitiu 5 decisões — todas idênticas no resultado — referentes a quatro famílias de origem brasileira que haviam apresentado pedidos de reconhecimento da cidadania italiana por descendência (iure sanguinis).

Todos os cinco pedidos foram rejeitados. Por quê? Porque os pedidos haviam sido apresentados em abril e maio de 2025 — após a entrada em vigor do Decreto Tajani (em 28 de março de 2025). O juiz aplicou a nova lei e observou que o Tribunal Constitucional já havia validado essa mesma legislação. Fim da história — por ora.

E os screenshots do Prenot@Ami?

Ao longo dos últimos meses, ouvi o argumento de que qualquer pessoa que tivesse reservado — ou mesmo apenas tentado reservar — um agendamento consular antes de 28 de março de 2025 teria uma espécie de "salvo-conduto" em relação à nova lei.

Essa teoria não encontra qualquer respaldo nas decisões de Brescia. O juiz não considerou se os requerentes haviam tentado agendamentos consulares anteriormente: ele analisou a data de apresentação do pedido e aplicou a lei vigente naquele momento. Um screenshot não é um ato jurídico formal. Um e-mail a um consulado não é um pedido protocolado em juízo.

Para entender melhor esse risco, veja meu artigo detalhado: A Ilusão do Prenot@Ami: Por que capturas de tela não salvarão seu pedido de cidadania.

Atualização Importante de Bolonha

Desde as decisões de Brescia, uma nova decisão do Tribunal de Bolonha veio à tona — e merece atenção específica, precisamente porque aborda diretamente um argumento que havia dado esperança a alguns membros desta comunidade.

Muitos de vocês devem ter lido sobre uma decisão favorável desse mesmo Tribunal de Bolonha que aparentemente havia reconhecido a cidadania em um caso pós-reforma. A nova decisão de Bolonha segue a direção oposta — e o faz de forma explícita.

O juiz apontou dois aspectos particularmente relevantes:

1. Atos Formais apenas: Apenas um pedido judicial formal ou uma solicitação administrativa completa com documentação integral se qualifica pelas regras de transição. Atos informais não são válidos.
2. Via Judicial Disponível: O juiz rejeitou o argumento de que o bloqueio consular isenta alguém de responsabilidade. A lei italiana sempre permitiu que os requerentes recorressem diretamente à Justiça (ricorso contra o silêncio). Se não foi possível obter um agendamento, a via judicial estava disponível.

Saiba mais aqui: A Sentença de Bolonha — Quando as "Boas Notícias" exigem uma segunda leitura.

O que é possível fazer?

Não pretendo criar um pessimismo desnecessário: o panorama jurídico é complexo e as situações variam. Ainda podem existir caminhos a seguir, mas eles são seletivos e exigem uma avaliação caso a caso.

O que não é possível fazer é basear-se em interpretações otimistas que a maioria dos tribunais, ao menos por ora, não está aceitando. Se você ainda está considerando avançar com o processo, faça-o com base em assessoria jurídica real, fundamentada em jurisprudência atual e atualizada.

Para uma análise mais detalhada das tendências atuais, consulte: Cidadania Italiana por Descendência em 2026: O que os Tribunais estão realmente decidindo.

Para a análise completa das 6 decisões, consulte meu artigo no blog: 👉 6 novas decisões dei tribunais de Bolonha e Bréscia: Uma leitura sem falso otimismo

by Avv. Michele Vitale - Italyget.com

I want to share something important with this community, because lately I've been seeing information circulating that could lead people to make the wrong decisions.

Let's start with what actually happened.

Late March and late April 2026, the Tribunal of Brescia issued 5 rulings — all identical in their outcome — on four Brazilian-origin families who had filed petitions for recognition of Italian citizenship by descent (iure sanguinis).

All five petitions were rejected.

Why? Because the petitions had been filed in April - May, 2025 — after the Tajani Decree had already come into force (on March 28, 2025). The judge applied the new law. And noted that the Constitutional Court had already validated that same legislation.

End of story — for now.

What about Prenot@ami screenshots?

Over the past several months, I have heard it argued that anyone who booked — or even merely attempted to book — a consular appointment before March 28, 2025 would have a kind of "safe passage" from the new law.

This theory finds no support in the Brescia rulings. The judge did not consider whether the applicants had previously attempted consular bookings: he looked at the filing date of the petition and applied the law in force at that time.

A screenshot is not a formal legal act. An email to a consulate is not a petition filed in court.

And now, an important update from Bologna.

Since the Brescia rulings, a new decision from the Tribunal of Bologna has come to light — and it deserves specific attention, precisely because it directly addresses an argument that had been giving some in this community reason for hope.

Many of you will have read about a favourable ruling from that same Tribunal of Bologna which had apparently recognised citizenship in a post-reform case where applicants hadn't secured a consular appointment before the deadline.

The new Bologna ruling goes in the opposite direction — and does so explicitly.

The judge made two points that are particularly important:

First, only a formal court petition or a complete administrative application with full documentation qualifies under the transitional rules. Prenot@Ami screenshots, information requests, and any other informal acts do not count — the ruling says this directly.

Second — and this is the part that often gets overlooked — the judge rejected the argument that the consular deadlock excuses anyone. The reasoning is straightforward: Italian law has always allowed applicants to go directly to court, without first going through the consulate. So if you couldn't get a consular appointment, the judicial route was available to you. Not using it is not a valid excuse.

This ruling matters because it comes from the same court that issued the previous ruling which circulated as a positive precedent. Two courts, same city, opposite outcomes — which should tell you something about how uncertain this landscape remains.

So what can be done?

I don't want to create unnecessary pessimism: the legal landscape is complex and situations vary. There can be still paths forward, but they are selective and require a case-by-case assessment.

What cannot be done is to rely on optimistic interpretations that most courts, at least for now, are not accepting.

f you are still considering whether to proceed, do so on the basis of real legal advice, based on current and up-to-date case law, not vague assurances — and certainly not on the basis of a single favourable ruling from a court that has now, in a separate case, issued a decision pointing in the opposite direction.

For a more detailed examination of the 6 rulings, check , as usual , my blog post: 5 New Rulings from the Brescia Court — and Now Bologna Too: A Reading Without False Optimism – ItalyGet

by Avv. Michele Vitale - italyget.com

On April 30, 2026, the Italian Constitutional Court published Sentence No. 63/2026, a highly anticipated decision regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Article 3-bis of Law No. 91 of February 5, 1992. This article was introduced by Decree-Law No. 36 of March 28, 2025, and subsequently converted into Law No. 74 of May 23, 2025.

Constitutional Questions Raised

The Turin Tribunal argued that Article 3-bis functioned as an unconstitutional retroactive revocation. The referral alleged domestic breaches of equality, reasonableness, and legitimate expectations (Articles 2 and 3 of the Italian Constitution). It also raised international law conflicts, specifically regarding EU citizenship rights (Articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU), the prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of nationality (Article 15 UDHR), and the right to enter one's own country (Article 3, Protocol 4 ECHR). The tribunal's core grievance was the abrupt termination of substantive rights without an adequate transitional period.

The Court's Ruling

The Constitutional Court upheld the law in its entirety. Crucially, the Court classified Article 3-bis as a "retroactive preclusion of acquisition," rejecting the premise that it constituted a revocation. The Justices rooted this distinction in the constitutional necessity of an "effective link" between the citizen and the Republic, drawing on the democratic duties outlined in Articles 1, 4, and 54 of the Constitution.

The legislative balancing of interests was deemed proportional. The Court found no violation of legitimate expectations for those who missed the deadline, holding that their legal position had not sufficiently consolidated compared to individuals with pending applications. EU law arguments were dismissed outright: the Court noted that CJEU proportionality tests apply strictly when an established citizenship status is actively revoked. The remaining human rights claims were declared inadmissible due to defective legal reasoning in the lower court's referral ordinance.

Full Text of the Ruling.

You can read the full translated text of the sentence on my blog post here: https://italyget.com/constitutional-court-sentence-63-2026-jure-sanguinis/

My legal analysis

It's definitely too soon. Give me a few days to recover from the shock 🤦‍♂️

Edit: I posted a short video comment here Constitutional Court Ruling 63/2026: Why there is still hope for Jure Sanguinis.