Anyone tracking Italian citizenship by descent right now is dealing with a genuinely confusing situation. In the space of a few months, Italian courts have issued decisions that flatly contradict each other. One court grants. Another rejects the same type of claim. A third puts everything on hold and waits. Understanding why this is happening — and what it actually means for anyone with a pending or potential claim — requires looking at the full picture, not just the rulings that happen to support a particular outcome.
This article covers the significant decisions I have been able to verify directly from court documents: one rejection from Brescia, three rulings from Palermo issued by the same judge but producing different outcomes, and two grants from Naples. It also explains the higher-court framework — particularly the Constitutional Court ruling from April 30 and the two Cassazione referrals still pending — that gives these lower-court decisions their context.
I have been practicing Italian citizenship law for over eight years, driven by a genuine passion for this field and for the people whose lives it affects. Citizenship by descent is not just a legal procedure — it is a deeply personal journey, and I have had the privilege of accompanying a multitude of applicants through it.
What we are living through right now is a moment of sharp interpretive instability, where the same legal questions are producing opposite outcomes in courts across the country within weeks of each other. This is not unusual in our legal system — oscillations in judicial interpretation are part of how Italian law evolves — but the pace and the stakes make this particular moment worth examining carefully.
What follows is my analysis of where things actually stand, written without false reassurance in either direction.on.
The cases analyzed in this article concerns Italian citizenship by descent. Courts have shown a similar willingness to challenge the Ministry’s position in a related area: the recognition of citizenship for children of naturalized foreigners. For an in-depth analysis of how the Trento court recently ruled against the Ministry’s interpretation in that context, see: Italian Citizenship for Children of Naturalized Foreigners: Trento Court Overrules the Ministry
How the Rules on Italian Citizenship by Descent Changed in March 2025
Decree-Law No. 36/2025 — the Tajani Decree, converted into Law 74/2025 — ended the system of unlimited generational transmission of Italian citizenship. Under the new Article 3-bis of Law 91/1992, a person born abroad who holds another nationality can no longer claim Italian citizenship purely on the basis of descent. Recognition is now only available in four specific situations: a formal judicial petition or complete administrative application was submitted before 23:59 Rome time on March 27, 2025; the consulate had already communicated a confirmed appointment before that deadline; the Italian ancestor is a parent or grandparent who held exclusively Italian citizenship; or the applicant’s parent lived in Italy for at least two uninterrupted years after acquiring Italian citizenship and before the applicant’s birth.
For a complete overview of the new rules, read: Italian Citizenship by Descent: Law 74/2025 – Complete Legal Guide
The cutoff is absolute. What counts is whether a recognized formal step had been completed before the deadline — not whether the applicant had tried to complete one.
What does not qualify, under the plain text of the law, is any informal act: an email sent to a consulate, a screenshot of a failed booking attempt on the Prenot@mi portal, a registration on a consular waiting list, or any other indication of intent that was not formalized through one of the channels above. The March 27 deadline is the dividing line, and what is on either side of it is determined by whether a recognized formal step had been completed — not by whether the applicant had tried to complete one.
On April 30, 2026, the Constitutional Court published Sentenza 63/2026, upholding the reform as constitutional. The Court found the legislature had acted within acceptable limits by requiring a genuine link between citizenship and actual connection to Italy. It upheld the cutoff, validated the generational limit, and confirmed that applicants who had never formally filed had no vested right to recognition under the old rules. However, it explicitly left one specific question open — and that gap is now at the center of the litigation described below.
Brescia applies the reform strictly
The Tribunal of Brescia (Judge Marina Mangosi, Sentenza n. 5172/2026, RG 3397/2025, May 29, 2026) rejected a post-reform citizenship petition filed on March 28, 2025 — the day after the reform came into force.
The judge’s reasoning was direct: the petitioners did not satisfy any of the substantive requirements introduced by Art. 1, paragraph 1 of Decree-Law 36/2025. No formal application had been submitted before the March 27 deadline, no confirmed consular appointment had been communicated, the Italian ancestor was beyond the second degree, and no parent had resided in Italy for two consecutive years before the applicant’s birth. The petition was rejected in full.
The court compensated litigation costs between the parties, noting the novelty of the legal questions involved — which had only recently been addressed by the Constitutional Court.
In this case, no Prenot@mi documentation or evidence of consular booking attempts was produced. The evidentiary question that proved decisive, as you will see, in Naples and Palermo was therefore not before the Brescia court.
Two decisions going the other way: Naples grants citizenship by descent
The Naples Tribunal (XIII Civil Section, specialized immigration panel) issued two favorable rulings on post-reform citizenship petitions, both based on documented Prenot@mi attempts.
The first ruling (RG 7143/2025, Judge Adele Granata, May 28, 2026) involved an Argentine family claiming descent from an ancestor born in Bagnoli Irpino (Avellino). The petition was registered at 17:28 on March 28, 2025 — after the reform had come into force. The petitioners documented repeated failed attempts to book an appointment through the Prenot@mi portal at the Italian Consulate General in Moron, Argentina, starting from December 2024. Every attempt had been unsuccessful due to the complete unavailability of booking slots. The court found that this conduct demonstrated unequivocally the applicants’ intent to initiate the administrative procedure well before the statutory deadline, and that the system malfunction could not be attributed to them. The petition was granted in full.
The second ruling (RG not legible, same section, April 17, 2026) involved a Brazilian family whose Italian ancestor was born in the province of Caserta. The petition was registered at 23:07 on March 28, 2025. The petitioners documented Prenot@mi attempts at the Italian Consulate General in Curitiba from December 12, 2024 to March 21, 2025, all unsuccessful. The Ministry of the Interior did not appear in the proceedings. The court applied the same reasoning: systematic, documented attempts over a significant period of time are sufficient to satisfy the requirement under Art. 1, letter (a) of Law 74/2025, since the impossibility of using the administrative channel cannot be charged to applicants who genuinely and persistently tried to use it. The petition was granted.
Both Naples rulings share a key element: the judge in each case treated the Prenot@mi record not merely as background context, but as substantive evidence of an intent to file that predated the deadline — and held that the administrative system’s failure to respond cannot operate as a legal barrier against those who tried in good faith to engage with it.
Do you need assistance to claim your heritage? Do you need help assessing your eligibility? Book a consultation
Palermo’s diverging rulings: what decided each case
The Tribunal of Palermo produced three rulings in February 2026, all issued by Judge Carmela Caranna, that together reveal how much the quality and timing of pre-deadline documentation can determine the outcome of a post-reform citizenship claim.
The first case (Sentenza n. 1071/2026, RG 4051/2025, February 13, 2026) resulted in a full grant. The petitioners — an Argentine family — had produced two pieces of evidence. First, documented failed attempts to book an appointment through the Prenot@mi portal at the Italian Consulate General in Buenos Aires, spanning from October 21, 2024 to March 17, 2025. Second, a PEC — a certified email with legal standing under Italian law — sent to the same consulate on March 25, 2025 at 17:24, containing a formal out-of-court demand for an appointment. The petition was registered at 19:29 on March 28, 2025 — after the reform had come into force. The judge nonetheless found that the combination of these two elements was sufficient to satisfy the requirement under Art. 1, letter (a) of Law 74/2025, and granted citizenship to all petitioners.
The second case (Sentenza n. 1165/2026, RG 6612/2025, February 17, 2026) produced a split outcome. The petition involved multiple applicants. The only claim accepted was that of the single applicant who qualified as a second-degree descendant of the Italian ancestor — falling within the generational limit. For the remaining applicants, the judge rejected on two separate grounds: they were beyond the second degree, and the Prenot@mi documentation they had produced — showing attempts only during 2024 at the Consulate General in Curitiba — was held insufficient to prove the circumstance required under letter (a). Attempts concentrated in 2024 alone, without evidence of continued engagement closer to the March 27, 2025 deadline, did not meet the standard. In this case, there was no PEC.
The third case (RG 5888/2025, February 7, 2026) also produced a split outcome along generational lines. One applicant — a second-degree descendant of the Italian ancestor — was granted citizenship. All others were rejected because their ancestry exceeded the second-degree limit. No Prenot@mi or PEC documentation was raised as a basis for the claim in this case.
Reading the three Palermo decisions together, a clear pattern emerges. Where both sustained Prenot@mi attempts running close to the deadline and a formal PEC were produced, the court granted citizenship despite the post-deadline filing. Where only screenshots from 2024 were available — without a PEC and without evidence of continued attempts through March 2025 — the court rejected. And where the claim rested solely on the generational exception, the outcome turned entirely on whether the applicant fell within the second-degree limit.
Which courts are waiting — and what they expect from June
Between the courts that are rejecting and the one that granted, there is a third group: courts that have chosen to suspend proceedings entirely rather than issue a ruling now. Courts in Rome, Venice, and Caltanissetta have taken this approach. On May 18, 2026 the Tribunal of Genoa (Sezione XI Civile) joined them, issuing a formal suspension order and scheduling a new hearing for June 19, 2026.
The Genoa order is worth examining because it is clear on the reasons of suspension.
First, the court confirms that the upcoming June 9 session of the Constitutional Court is not a general review but carries a specific unresolved question — precisely the one left open at paragraph 9.1 of Ruling 63/2026. The referrals pending before the Constitutional Court come from the Tribunal of Mantova and the Tribunal of Campobasso
Both asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the distinction the Court previously declined to address: between applicants who received a formal appointment and those who initiated the process but never received one. The hearing of the Constitutional Court is scheduled on June 9 2026
Second, the Genoa judge notes something about the specific case before the court: the petitioner produced documentation of consular appointment attempts, even if — in the judge’s words — this documentation is not absolute or incontrovertible. Genoa is not ruling on whether this evidence is sufficient. But by flagging it as the factual element that makes the case different, the judge is signaling precisely what the June 9 ruling needs to answer.
The tribunal of Genove stated: “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.
Two higher-court decisions will determine the direction of everything below them. The Constitutional Court session on June 9 addresses the specific gap identified at paragraph 9.1 of Ruling 63/2026
Whatever position the Court takes — whether it extends protection to documented consular attempts or confirms that only confirmed appointments and formal filings qualify — should give lower courts /Tribunals the guidance they are currently waiting for.
The Sezioni Unite of the Court of Cassazione — the plenary formation of Italy’s highest civil court, — have two separate referrals pending.
The first, Ord. 17973/2024 from June 2024, concerns what practitioners call the Minor Issue: whether a child who held Italian citizenship at birth loses it when a parent acquires foreign nationality during the child’s minority. This is a question under Articles 7 and 12 of the 1912 citizenship law, and its unresolved status has been contributing to the backlog at consulates for years. Oral argument was held on April 14, 2026, but no decision has been published.
The second referral, Ord. 20122/2025 from July 2025, asks the Sezioni Unite to rule on how Art. 3-bis interacts with cases in which the underlying facts — the family history, the descent, the claimed citizenship — all predate the reform itself. Neither referral directly addresses the weight to be given to Prenot@mi documentation. But the answers should establish the foundational framework within which every lower court will then apply its own evidentiary reasoning.
Your case and the reform: a clear breakdown
The courts are genuinely divided, and the decisions that will resolve that division have not yet been issued. What follows is an honest account of where different categories of claimants actually stand.
If you submitted a formal petition or complete administrative application before 23:59 on March 27, 2025, the reform does not apply to your case. The transitional protections cover you regardless of how many generations back your Italian ancestor is, and the litigation described in this article is not relevant to your situation.
If you received a confirmed consular appointment — communicated to you in writing by the competent consulate — before the deadline, you fall within the express exception in Art. 3-bis letter (a-bis). Courts have applied this consistently.
The generational limit and the deadline question are two separate bars, and it is important not to conflate them. The generational limit — which restricts recognition to applicants whose Italian ancestor is a parent or grandparent — does not automatically disqualify everyone whose ancestry goes further back. What it does is remove the generational path as a standalone basis for recognition. An applicant with a great-grandparent or more distant ancestor can still succeed if they satisfy one of the other exceptions: a formal pre-deadline filing, a confirmed appointment, or — as the Naples and Palermo decisions suggest — sufficiently documented evidence of a genuine attempt to engage with the consular process before the cutoff.
If your situation involves consular booking attempts that were never confirmed — Prenot@mi attempts, emails, or a formal PEC sent before the deadline — and you filed your petition after March 27, 2025, your position is contested. The degree of formality of your pre-deadline documentation matters. The Naples courts accepted Prenot@mi attempts as sufficient where they were sustained over a significant period running close to the deadline. A formal PEC containing an explicit out-of-court demand for an appointment, sent before the deadline and combined with documented portal failures, was accepted in Palermo. The more formal and the earlier the documentation, the stronger the argument — but none of this is settled law, and the higher-court decisions expected in June may resolve the question in either direction.
If your ancestor is beyond the second degree and you filed after the deadline, and you have no pre-deadline documentation of any kind, the generational limit and the cutoff operate together as an absolute bar. Courts have been consistent on this and no decision has gone the other way in those circumstances.
If your case has been suspended by a court, you are waiting for the same two decisions — from the Constitutional Court and the Sezioni Unite of the Cassazione — that every other suspended court in Italy is also waiting for. The Constitutional Court hearing is scheduled for June 9, 2026. The Sezioni Unite ruling has no published date yet.
The favorable decisions from Naples and Palermo are not green lights. They represent three rulings from two courts on a legal question that remains genuinely open, issued before the authoritative decisions that will bind all lower courts have been published. Their reasoning is coherent and grounded in a gap the Constitutional Court deliberately left open. They are also subject to being overtaken by what happens in June
Anyone making decisions about whether to file, whether to continue, or what documentary strategy to pursue needs advice based on the current state of the case law — not on a summary of favorable outcomes, not on the pre-reform framework, and not on predictions about where the courts are heading.
This article reflects the state of Italian citizenship case law as of 31 May 2026. Given the pace of developments in this area — and the higher-court decisions expected in June 2026 — the legal landscape may have evolved since publication.
Sources: Trib. Brescia, Sentenza n. 5172/2026, RG 3397/2025, Judge Marina Mangosi, May 29, 2026; Trib. Napoli, XIII Sezione Civile, RG 7143/2025, Judge Adele Granata, May 28, 2026; Trib. Napoli, XIII Sezione Civile, April 17, 2026; Trib. Palermo, Sentenza n. 1071/2026, RG 4051/2025, Judge Carmela Caranna, February 13, 2026; Trib. Palermo, Sentenza n. 1165/2026, RG 6612/2025, Judge Carmela Caranna, February 17, 2026; Trib. Palermo, RG 5888/2025, Judge Carmela Caranna, February 7, 2026; Corte Cost., Sentenza n. 63/2026, April 30, 2026; Cass. Civ. I Sez., Ord. 13818/2026, May 12, 2026.
