6 New Rulings from the Bologna and Brescia Court: A Reading Without False Optimism

---

I write as a lawyer who has been following Italian iure sanguinis citizenship recognition for years — and I do so now because over the past few weeks I have been reading communications that, in my view, risk creating expectations that simply cannot be sustained in court.

Executive Summary: Six rulings — five from the Tribunal of Brescia (filed on March 27 and April 30, 2026) and one from the Tribunal of Bologna — apply Art. 3-bis in its strict literal reading: the relevant date is the formal filing date of the court petition, not a consular booking. Prenot@Ami screenshots, requests for information and waiting lists do not count as an appointment, and the “consular deadlock” argument has been rejected. After Ruling 24045/2026 of the United Sections, the minor issue is closed for consular cases (Law 74/2025 non-retroactivity confirmed), while the generational limits of Art. 3-bis remain pending before the CJEU (Order 147/2026).

---

What Did the Brescia and Bologna Courts Actually Decide?

On March 27th and April 30, 2026, the Tribunal of Brescia (Judges Andrea Tinelli and Alessandro Pernigotto) filed 5 rulings identical in their operative part, concerning 5 separate petitions — all formally deposited on April–May 2025 — i.e., after the entry into force of Decree-Law No. 36 of March 28, 2025 (the so-called “Tajani Decree,” later converted into Law 74/2025).

In all 5 cases, the judge:

• found Article 1, paragraph 1 of Decree-Law No. 36/2025 applicable;
• noted that the Constitutional Court had already upheld the law’s constitutional legitimacy, declaring the questions raised by the Turin Tribunal partly unfounded and partly inadmissible;
• rejected the petitions because the applicants failed to meet the substantive requirements imposed by the new legislation;
• ordered the losing party (the applicants) to reimburse the State Attorney’s Office for its legal costs (approximately €4,000) in one case and offset the legal costs between the parties in the other four cases.

The reasoning is straightforward and leaves little interpretive room: the relevant date is the formal filing date of the court petition — not a consular booking, an email, a Prenot@Ami screenshot, or any other informal act predating it. L’avvocato patrocinante della causa ha confermato di aver depositato varie schermate prenot@mi in 4 dei 5 casi in esame (non ho ancora avuto occasione di verificare il quinto).

What Did the Tribunal of Bologna Add to the Picture?

Since I published my initial observations on the Brescia rulings, a new and important decision has just come to light — this time from the Tribunal of Bologna, which deserves specific attention precisely because it directly addresses a theory that had been circulating.

Many will recall that a favourable ruling from the very same Tribunal of Bologna (ruling no. 3335/26 of April 17, 2026), circulated as evidence that post-reform recognition remained possible where applicants had clearly manifested their intention to proceed but had been unable to secure a consular appointment for reasons beyond their control.

The new Bologna ruling, shared by my colleague Maria Stella La Malfa (whom I would like to thank for sharing) in the Natitaliani association group, cuts in the opposite direction — and does so explicitly.

The judge:

• applies the strict literal reading of the law, clarifying that only a formal court petition (Art. 3-bis, lett. b), or a formal administrative application accompanied by the required documentation (Art. 3-bis, lett. a and a-bis), can constitute a qualifying act under the transitional provisions;
• expressly excludes Prenot@Ami screenshots, requests for information, and any other attempts at accessing the consular system from the scope of protection of the prior regime;
• rejects the consular deadlock argument: the judge notes that settled case law has long recognised the right to file directly before the judiciary without any prior administrative application, meaning that an applicant who faced administrative paralysis had a clear and available alternative path — and cannot now invoke that paralysis as an excuse.

This last point is particularly significant and has been underappreciated in the debate so far. The impossibility of booking a consular appointment does not, in this judge’s view, create a legally protected situation — because the judicial route was always open.

Why Can’t Prenot@Ami Screenshots Save a Post-Reform Claim?

A theory has been circulating for some time: that anyone who booked — or even merely attempted to book — a consular appointment before March 27, 2025, would be shielded from the Decree’s application. This reading finds no support in the Brescia rulings. The Bologna ruling now goes further and addresses it head-on, explicitly ruling it out. The judge did not treat consular booking attempts as legally equivalent to a formal application. He applied the law as written.

I am not saying the issue is definitively closed at every judicial level. There are more complex avenues — including proceedings currently pending before the Court of Cassation and of course the Constitutional Court — that could open different scenarios. But these are technical, selective instruments, which have yet to be approved by the courts and are certainly not available today.

What Can We Conclude Without False Optimism?

If you filed or intend to file a court petition after March 28, 2025, both the Brescia rulings and now the Bologna ruling describe exactly the risk you face. Discuss with your lawyer whether there are, in your specific case, concrete defensive arguments — do not base your decision on general readings that have yet to find support in the case law of ordinary courts.

If 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.

The rulings are public. The data is what it is.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Brescia and Bologna courts decide in 2026?

On March 27 and April 30, 2026, the Tribunal of Brescia filed five rulings with an identical operative part, and the Tribunal of Bologna issued a sixth decision shortly after. All six apply Article 3-bis of the reform in a strict literal reading, find that the generational limits are satisfied, and reject the petitions because the applicants failed to meet the substantive requirements imposed by the new legislation.

Can Prenot@Ami screenshots or waiting lists count as an appointment?

No. The judges expressly exclude Prenot@Ami screenshots, requests for information and any other attempts at accessing the consular system from the protection of the prior regime. The relevant date is the formal filing date of the court petition — not a consular booking, an email, a screenshot, or any other informal act predating it.

Does the “consular deadlock” argument work?

No. The Tribunal of Bologna rejected it: settled case law has long recognised the right to file directly before the judiciary without any prior administrative application, so an applicant who faced administrative paralysis had a clear and available alternative path — and cannot now invoke that paralysis as an excuse.

What changed after United Sections Ruling 24045/2026?

Ruling 24045/2026 (July 27, 2026) closed the “minor issue” for consular cases and confirmed the non-retroactivity of Law 74/2025. The generational limits of Art. 3-bis remain in force but are now pending before the CJEU under Order 147/2026. For post-reform claims, the “no false optimism” reading of the Brescia and Bologna rulings remains the guiding standard.

---

For a complete breakdown of recent jurisprudence from key judicial venues across Italy, see our analysis of Italian citizenship court rulings and tribunal precedents.

---