Bologna Court Doubles Down: Why Failed “Prenot@mi” Attempts Cannot Save Post-Reform Citizenship Claims
Note: I have added an edit at the end of this post with some personal clarifications based on the comments. If you are reading this for the first time, I recommend reviewing it as well.
The Court of Bologna has issued a new ruling that reinforces the strict application of the March 2025 citizenship reform (Decree-Law 36/2025, converted into Law 74/2025). The decision, published on June 1, 2026, in case RG 15701/2025, confirms that courts are rejecting appeals filed after the reform’s cutoff date when the applicant’s lineage exceeds the new second-degree (grandparent) limit.
Crucially, the ruling goes a step further than previous decisions: the judge explicitly clarified that failed attempts to book an appointment on the consular Prenot@mi portal—even if slot capacity was exhausted—and the simple preparatory activity of collecting documents are entirely irrelevant to obtaining protection under the reform’s safeguard clauses.
This decision directly addresses recent marketing claims circulating online that suggest Prenot@mi screenshots or booking attempts are enough to safeguard a post-reform case. The reality of the jurisprudence remains highly restrictive, showing that the risk of filing such lawsuits is substantial.
The full anonymized text of the ruling is available below, alongside the complete English translation.
TL;DR
- This Bologna ruling says that: mere failed booking attempts on the Prenot@mi portal due to exhausted slots are legally irrelevant.
- that collecting documents and preparing the application cannot be expansively interpreted to fit the reform’s safeguard clauses.
- that the constitutional legitimacy of the reform is fully established following the Constitutional Court’s Judgment No. 63/2026.
The Court’s Rationale
The Explicit Rejection of Prenot@mi Booking Attempts
A common argument in post-reform cases is that applicants tried to book an appointment before the March 27, 2025 deadline but failed because the Prenot@mi portal had no slots. The Court of Bologna explicitly shut down this line of defense, stating that even if booking attempts failed due to slot unavailability, this fact does not trigger any exception to the new law.
Document Preparation is Not a Safeguard
The judge also ruled that the safeguard clauses—which protect cases with existing consular appointments or pending judicial filings before the cutoff—cannot be interpreted expansively. The court confirmed that “preparatory activity,” such as collecting certificates and legalizing documents, does not constitute a valid application or appointment under the law.
Application of the Generational Cut-Off
Because the lawsuit was filed on November 5, 2025, the reform applied in full. Since the applicants were descendants of the third and fourth degree from the Italian ancestor, they did not meet the requirement of having a first-degree (parent) or second-degree (grandparent) ancestor who held exclusive Italian citizenship at the time of their death.
Key Citations from the Ruling
The court’s decision leaves no room for expansive interpretation regarding the consular portal attempts:
“Non rileverebbero neppure i tentativi di accesso al sito prenot@mi e in ipotesi non riusciti nell’intento per essere esauriti i posti disponibili, tentativi, peraltro, neppure dedotti, né tanto meno documentati nel caso di specie.”
(English translation: “Even attempts to access the Prenot@mi website, and hypothetically failed in this intent because available slots were exhausted, would not be relevant – attempts which, moreover, were neither alleged nor even documented in this case.”)
Regarding the scope of the safeguard clauses, the judge added:
“il riferimento è ad una domanda giudiziale (art. 3 bis lett. b), ad una domanda, corredata della necessaria documentazione, presentata all’ufficio consolare o al sindaco competenti (art. 3 bis lett. a) o ad una domanda corredata della necessaria documentazione, presentata all’ufficio consolare o al sindaco competenti nel giorno indicato da appuntamento comunicato all’interessato dall’ufficio competente (art. 3 bis lett. a bis), ciò che impedisce qualsiasi interpretazione estensiva delle fattispecie indicate, ancor più fino a volervi ricomprendere addirittura l’attività preparatoria dei documenti.”
(English translation: “the reference is to a judicial claim (Art. 3-bis letter b), to an application, accompanied by the necessary documentation, presented to the competent consular office or mayor (Art. 3-bis letter a), or to an application, accompanied by the necessary documentation, presented to the competent consular office or mayor on the day indicated by the appointment communicated to the interested party by the competent office (Art. 3-bis letter a-bis), which prevents any expansive interpretation of the indicated cases, even more so up to wanting to include even the preparatory activity of documents.”)
Defensive Strategy: Let the Dust Settle
This ruling demonstrates why a cautious approach is necessary. While some marketing announcements celebrate isolated positive decisions, the consistent jurisprudence from specialized sections shows a clear trend toward strict application of the reform. Rushing into judicial appeals based on Prenot@mi screenshots or waiting lists poses an extremely high risk of dismissal and loss of litigation costs.
The most prudent path forward is to pause and wait for the legal landscape to stabilize. We are currently waiting for the Joint Sections (Sezioni Unite) of the Court of Cassation to issue crucial rulings that may clarify the application of these rules. Until then, attempting to force claims through the courts using “portal attempts” remains a high-risk gamble.
Full English Translation of the Ruling
Below is the page-by-page translation of the ruling from the Court of Bologna, Specialized Section on International Protection, published on June 1, 2026.
Page 1
ITALIAN REPUBLIC
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
ORDINARY COURT OF BOLOGNA
SPECIALIZED SECTION ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
The Court, represented by the Honorary Judge Dr. [OMISSIS], following the written procedure (trattazione cartolare) of May 26, 2026, has pronounced, pursuant to Art. 281-sexies of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), the following
SENTENCE
in the first-instance civil case registered under RG No. 15701/2025, initiated by:
* [CLAIMANT 1 / J.R.G.], born in São Paulo/SP, Brazil on November 20, 1984, in his own name and as the parent exercising parental responsibility over the minor child:
* [MINOR CLAIMANT / J.P.O.G.], born in São Paulo/SP, Brazil on April 9, 2011;
both represented and defended by Atty. [ATTORNEY 1] in agreement with Adv. [ATTORNEY 2].
CLAIMANTS
against
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR (C.F. 97149560589), in the person of the Minister pro tempore, represented and defended by the District Attorney General of the State of Bologna.
RESPONDENT
With the ex lege intervention of the
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
- CONCLUSIONS for the Claimants: as per the written notes filed on May 25, 2026.
Page 2
Concise Exposition of the Factual and Legal Grounds of the Decision
By means of an appeal pursuant to Art. 281-decies c.p.c. filed on November 5, 2025, the claimants requested the recognition of Italian citizenship jure sanguinis, asserting they are descendants of [ITALIAN ANCESTOR / G.G.], born in Zocca (MO) on April 15, 1901, who emigrated to Brazil, where he lived his life without ever renouncing Italian citizenship, nor naturalizing as a Brazilian citizen.
By decree dated April 2, 2026, this judge, having noted the nullity of the powers of attorney granted by the claimants pursuant to Art. 182 c.p.c., assigned the claimants a peremptory deadline until April 30, 2026, to deposit new valid powers of attorney and scheduled the first hearing for May 26, 2026, ordering its replacement with written notes pursuant to Art. 127-ter c.p.c.
The documents were regularly communicated to the Public Prosecutor, who did not submit any conclusions.
The claimants served the appeal and the decree scheduling the hearing on the Ministry of the Interior.
On May 21, 2026, the State Attorney General of Bologna entered an appearance on behalf of the Ministry of the Interior, requesting the rejection of the appeal, which is regulated by the provisions of Decree-Law 36/2025 converted into Law 74/2025 — which has already been positively reviewed by the Constitutional Court in relation to alleged claims of unconstitutionality — as the conditions provided by the new law for the applicability of the previous legislation are not met, nor have the claimants met the burden of proof, specifically regarding the absence of causes of failure to acquire or loss of citizenship provided by law, all the more so since ius soli applies in the American continent. Although the respondent Ministry entered an appearance late, this lateness does not affect the admissibility of defenses that do not relate to counterclaims or procedural or merit objections not raiseable ex officio.
The claimants filed new valid powers of attorney on April 30, 2026, and, on May 25, 2026, written notes pursuant to Art. 127-ter c.p.c. containing their conclusions for the written hearing of May 26, 2026, upon which the appeal is now decided.
****
Prelimonarily, the territorial jurisdiction of this Court of Bologna is established, as provided by Art. 4, paragraph 5, of Decree-Law No. 13 of February 17, 2017, converted, with amendments, by Law No. 46 of April 13, 2017, as amended by Art. 1, paragraph 36, of Enabling Law No. 206/2021, according to which: “When the plaintiff resides abroad, disputes concerning the determination of Italian citizenship status are assigned with reference to the municipality of birth of the father, mother, or ancestor who are Italian citizens”, as well as the monocratic nature of the dispute (cf. Art. 3, paragraph 4-d, of Decree-Law No. 13 of February 17, 2017, cited, according to which: “except as provided by paragraph 4-bis, derogating from the provisions of Article 50-bis, first paragraph, number 3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court judges monocratically in the disputes referred to in this article”).
Indeed, on the first point, the claimants, who reside abroad, indicated the municipality of birth of the ancestor as Zocca (MO).
Regarding the assignment of the dispute to an honorary judge, CSM resolution dated October 23, 2025, comes into consideration, in which, deemed “essential, for the purpose of achieving the PNRR objectives, to also assign confirmed honorary judges of the court monocratic proceedings in matters of citizenship”, it was determined to approve the temporary derogation from Art. 178 c. 4 lett. F of the circular on the organization tables of judicial offices for the 2026/2029 four-year period, in the sense that “until June 30, 2026, only disputes regarding the determination of Italian citizenship status referred to in Art. 3, paragraph 2, of Decree-Law no. 13/2017 may be assigned to honorary judges of the peace in service as honorary judges of the court at the date of entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 116/2017, confirmed pursuant to Art. 29 of the same legislative decree”.
Page 3
The claimants are validly represented and defended in court by their defender, appointed via valid special powers of attorney executed abroad, signed before public officials, with signatures recognized as authentic, apostilled, and translated.
On the merits, the appeal is unfounded and is rejected, without the need to enter into the examination of the documentation produced to prove the lineage, given the decisiveness of the following reasons.
The appeal was filed on November 5, 2025, and is therefore subject to the amendments to Law 91 of February 5, 1992, introduced by Decree-Law no. 36/2025, converted into Law 74/2025.
In particular, given the introduction of Art. 3-bis in Law 91/92, in derogation from the previous provisions on citizenship, any person born abroad who is also in possession of another citizenship, even if born before the date of entry into force of the new legislation, is considered to have never acquired Italian citizenship, unless one of the conditions listed under the letters of the cited Art. 3-bis is met.
In the present case, as already stated in the appeal, it is easily verified — with regard to the condition under letter c) of the cited Art. 3-bis — that the degree of descent of the claimants, Brazilian citizens, from the ancestor [ITALIAN ANCESTOR / G.G.], who in the claimants’ theory possessed only Italian citizenship at the time of his death, is, in any case, higher than the second; indeed, according to the narrative, the claimants are third- and fourth-degree descendants of the ancestor.
Furthermore, there are no applications submitted by the claimants to the competent consulate or mayor, accompanied by the necessary documentation, by 23:59, Rome time, on March 27, 2025, nor applications submitted by them to the competent consulate or mayor on the day indicated for the appointment, communicated to the interested party by the competent office by 23:59, Rome time, on the same date of March 27, 2025.
Even attempts to access the Prenot@mi website, and hypothetically failed in this intent because available slots were exhausted, would not be relevant – attempts which, moreover, were neither alleged nor even documented in this case.
Indeed, coming to the other conditions (besides the one already examined under letter c) provided by Art. 3-bis for the exclusion of the application of the new legislation, the reference is to a judicial claim (Art. 3-bis letter b), to an application, accompanied by the necessary documentation, presented to the competent consular office or mayor (Art. 3-bis letter a), or to an application, accompanied by the necessary documentation, presented to the competent consular office or mayor on the day indicated by the appointment communicated to the interested party by the competent office (Art. 3-bis letter a-bis), which prevents any expansive interpretation of the indicated cases, even more so up to wanting to include even the preparatory activity of documents.
Regarding the claims of unconstitutionality and conflict with supranational regulations, the new legislation on citizenship introduced by Decree-Law no. 36/2025, converted into Law 74/2025, has already been submitted to the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court, which, with Judgment No. 63/2026, rendered with decision of March 11, 2026, filed on April 30, 2026, excluded its unconstitutionality (also in relation to Art. 117 of the Constitution with reference to TEU and TFEU rules) in relation to the multiple profiles of illegitimacy raised by the referring courts, with a wide-ranging statement of reasons, supported by reference to the founding pillars of our democracy itself and to the authentic concept of citizenship, which allows any new challenges for alleged unconstitutionality and/or conflict with supranational regulations to be considered manifestly unfounded.
In light of the recent legislative intervention on the subject, the unconstitutionality challenges to which it has been subject, and the rulings of the Constitutional Court that have intervened, the prerequisites under Art. 92 c.p.c. for the complete compensation of litigation costs are deemed to be met.
Page 4
P.Q.M.
The Court of Bologna, monocratic, definitively pronouncing, provides as follows:
1. REJECTS the appeal;
2. DECLARES the complete compensation of litigation costs.
Bologna, June 1, 2026
The Honorary Judge
Dr. [OMISSIS]
EDIT: After reading the reddit comments on this post, I think it’s necessary to add a personal note to clarify the context and the intentions behind it.
Notably, in response to the comment “While positive case anecdotes are called “marketing announcements”, negative case announcements are what?”
I understand the perplexity, and I find it legitimate. However, I’d like to clarify the perspective from which I shared this ruling.
A service provider who thinks first of their own self-interest has every incentive to publish content or spread news that pushes for immediate action: more lawsuits filed, more fees. This post does exactly the opposite. It reports an unfavorable ruling, without reassuring comments, without invitations to proceed. Therefore, it can certainly not be considered marketing. If anything, it is uncomfortable information that, frankly, I regret having to publish (nobody likes to come across as a harbinger of bad news) and it costs me financially because it reduces the potential pool of my clients.
Nevertheless, I do it with conviction, because I believe that anyone evaluating legal action in this matter must do so with full awareness of the real risks, not just the opportunities. And the risk here is not just financial, however considerable it may be. In Italy, the principle of ne bis in idem applies: once a final judgment has been issued on a matter (meaning that further levels of judgment, if pursued, in the Court of Appeals and the Court of Cassation, have been exhausted), that same matter cannot be brought back into question. A lawsuit initiated today, in a case law context that is still uncertain and not consolidated, can end in a defeat that forever precludes any future possibility — even if the regulatory or interpretive framework should eventually improve.
And if there were still any doubt about the intent of this post, there is an objective fact that speaks for itself: content like this, which reports unfavorable decisions, systematically gathers far fewer “likes” compared to those where I share positive rulings. It is understandable — nobody likes bad news. But that is precisely why I will continue to publish them. My goal here is not to gather consensus, but to offer complete and honest information to those who find themselves having to make decisions so important for their lives, as well as for their wallets. And information that omits (or minimizes) risks is not information: it is misleading advertising, against which, among other things, the client has numerous protective tools provided by our legal system (we will return to this soon).
As for the observation about the nuances between cases, I take the point: “Is this finality not over-simplified, when there are nuances between cases and the recent Cassazione ruling on consular inaccessibility?” — but perhaps I was not sufficiently clear on a fundamental aspect: everything I reported in the post is not my personal opinion, let alone strategic guidance. They are the judge’s statements, reported in the most objective way possible, without additions or interpretations.
My only personal contribution — and I reiterate it — remains the invitation to exercise the utmost caution and prudence before undertaking any action.
