On June 23, 2026, the Tribunal of Palermo issued a ruling that introduces a new and significant argument into the post-reform citizenship debate: the consular waiting list as a basis for protection under the pre-reform framework.
The case involved a petitioner who had been placed on a consular waiting list before March 27, 2025, and was still waiting for an appointment date when the reform came into force. The petition was filed on February 24, 2026 — well after the reform deadline. The Ministry of the Interior did not appear in the proceedings.
The core argument: when does the interest to sue arise?
The Palermo judge’s reasoning starts from a procedural observation that has been largely overlooked in the debate so far. Before March 27, 2025, the petitioner was on a consular waiting list — meaning he had registered his intent to proceed but had not yet received a confirmed appointment date. At that point, he had no interest to sue: a judicial petition would have been inadmissible, because the administrative procedure had not yet stalled or been denied. The interest to sue arose only later — when, after more than two years on the waiting list, he still had not received an appointment date, and the legal uncertainty created by the reform made his situation objectively precarious.
This is a different argument from the one made in Naples and Palermo’s earlier favorable rulings, which focused on documented Prenot@mi attempts as evidence of pre-deadline intent. The June 23 ruling focuses instead on the procedural trajectory: the petitioner was not simply trying to book an appointment. He was already in the consular queue — and the interest to seek judicial protection arose precisely because that queue had become endless.
The Constitutional Court framework
The Palermo judge explicitly grounds this reasoning in Ruling 63/202 of the Italian Constitutional Court. Although the Constitutional Court upheld the reform’s general framework, the judge reads its motivazione as supporting the conclusion that the petitioner’s expectation had sufficiently consolidated — and was equivalent to that of someone who had already received a confirmed appointment or had already filed a judicial petition.
The relevant passage of the ruling states:
“Si ritiene, dunque, che anche alla luce della sentenza della Corte Costituzionale n. 63/2026, che l’aspettativa del ricorrente a vedersi riconosciuto lo status civitatis invocato, si sia sufficientemente consolidata, e sia equiparabile a quella di chi aveva già un appuntamento fissato alla data del 27.03.2025, o a chi aveva già introdotto un giudizio per l’accertamento dello status.”
[English: “It is therefore considered that, also in light of Constitutional Court Judgment No. 63/2026, the petitioner’s expectation of having the invoked citizenship status recognized has sufficiently consolidated, and is equivalent to that of someone who already had an appointment scheduled as of March 27, 2025, or who had already initiated judicial proceedings for the determination of that status.”]
What makes this ruling different
The June 23 Palermo ruling is distinct from the earlier favorable decisions for one important reason: it does not rely on Prenot@mi screenshots or email records. It relies on the fact of being on a consular waiting list — a status that is itself documented, official, and recognized by the consular system. This is a stronger evidentiary foundation than portal screenshots, and it opens a different category of potential claimants: those who had formally entered the consular queue before the deadline but had not yet received a confirmed appointment.
The ruling also engages critically with a 2023 Florence order that had held the interest to sue to exist in re ipsa for applicants from Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela — without requiring any proof of booking attempts. The Palermo judge explicitly disagrees with that position, holding that the interest to sue cannot be presumed from the applicant’s country of origin alone. Evidence is still required. But being on a consular waiting list, with documentation, satisfies that requirement.
My reading
As an Italian citizenship lawyer, this ruling introduces a category that had not been clearly addressed in post-reform case law: the applicant who was already in the official consular queue before March 27, 2025. The distinction between this position and simply having tried to book an appointment is legally significant. A waiting list registration is not a Prenot@mi screenshot — it is a formal acknowledgment by the consular system that the applicant was in line.
The contrast with Bologna remains. Bologna has held that only a formal application or a confirmed appointment qualifies — and that the judicial route was always available as an alternative. Palermo has now read the same framework and reached a different conclusion for a different category of applicant. The question of whether being on a waiting list is legally equivalent to having a confirmed appointment remains open — and will ultimately be resolved by the higher courts.
This ruling should be read alongside the broader analysis of how courts across Italy are approaching post-reform citizenship claims: Italian Citizenship by Descent After Law 74/2025: How Courts Are Deciding
For the Florence court’s approach to consular dysfunction, see: Florence Court Grants Citizenship: Consular Delays No Bar
