Bologna Court Rejects Citizenship Claim: “The Waiting List is Not an Appointment”
The Court of Bologna has rejected a jure sanguinis citizenship appeal filed after the March 2025 reform deadline. The ruling, published on May 20, 2026, confirms that the new generational limits are being strictly applied. More importantly, it clarifies a critical point: being placed on a consular waiting list does not exempt applicants from the new law.
This is the second negative ruling from the Court of Bologna that has come to my attention, following the previous rejection I discussed in my earlier analysis. Both of these dismissals follow a single, seemingly positive ruling that had circulated online, regarding which I had already expressed strong skepticism in another dedicated post.
You can download the full anonymized text of the ruling in PDF format below, and read the complete English translation at the bottom of this page. A deeper analysis will follow in the next hours, detailing the updates to the defensive legal strategy I am currently adopting with my clients for situations like the one described in the ruling.
TL;DR
The Court of Bologna dismissed a citizenship appeal because it was filed on March 28, 2025 — past the March 27, 2025 cutoff. Under Article 3-bis of Law 91/1992, citizenship cannot be recognized beyond the second degree (grandparent) unless specific exceptions apply. The court ruled that a Prenot@mi waiting list registration is not a scheduled appointment and does not trigger the safeguard clause. The decision heavily relies on the recent Constitutional Court Judgment No. 63/2026, which upheld the reform.
The Court’s Rationale
The Generational Cut-Off and Cut-Off Dates
The lawsuit was registered on March 28, 2025. Because this date is after the 23:59 deadline on March 27, 2025, the court applied the restrictive rules introduced by Decree-Law 36/2025. Since the ancestor was a third, fourth, or fifth-degree relative, the applicants exceeded the generational limit and did not qualify for citizenship.
Why the Waiting List is Not an Appointment
The applicants argued that their registration on the consular waiting list before the deadline should protect them under the safeguard clause. The Court of Bologna rejected this defense. The judge ruled that the exception only covers scheduled appointments communicated by the consulate before the deadline. Mere registration in a queue is not enough to freeze the old law.
The Constitutional Court Precedent
The ruling cites the recent Constitutional Court Judgment No. 63/2026, published on April 30, 2026. The Constitutional Court established that the legislature acted reasonably to restore “effective links with the Republic”. It also ruled that the principle of legitimate expectation was balanced appropriately, as applicants without recognized status do not have a vested right to citizenship under the old rules.
Key Citations from the Ruling
The court was clear on the waiting list issue:
“Per completezza neppure risulta presente la circostanza di esclusione, prevista dalla novella legislativa di riconoscimento della cittadinanza a seguito di domanda, corredata della necessaria documentazione, presentata all’ufficio consolare o al sindaco competenti nel giorno indicato da appuntamento comunicato all’interessato dall’ufficio competente entro le 23:59, ora di Roma della medesima data del 27.3.2025. La mera comunicazione di essere stati inseriti nelle liste di attesa non è sufficiente.”
(English translation: “For completeness, there is also no exclusion circumstance, provided by the new legislation for the recognition of citizenship following 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 by 23:59, Rome time, on the same date of March 27, 2025. The mere communication of having been placed on the waiting lists is not sufficient.”)
Regarding the constitutional legitimacy of the reform, the court noted:
“il principio del legittimo affidamento è sempre soggetto al normale bilanciamento proprio di tutti i principi costituzionali, che nel caso di specie è stato esercitato in modo ragionevole dal legislatore a fronte dell’obiettivo della nuova normativa da rinvenirsi nella “necessità di «vincoli effettivi con la Repubblica», al fine di ripristinare il nesso tra popolo, sovranità e territorio””
(English translation: “the principle of legitimate expectation is always subject to the normal balancing process typical of all constitutional principles, which in this case was exercised in a reasonable manner by the legislature in view of the objective of the new legislation, to be found in the ‘need for «effective links with the Republic», in order to restore the connection between people, sovereignty, and territory'”)
Next Steps
This ruling is a reminder that non-technical or standard approaches will face immediate rejection if filed after the deadline. If your case depends on waiting list screenshots or has similar generational issues, your strategy must adapt.
I am currently working on an updated defense protocol to address these specific points. A detailed strategic update is coming soon.
Full English Translation of the Ruling
Below is the complete, page-by-page translation of the ruling from the Court of Bologna, Specialized Section on International Protection, published on May 20, 2026.
### Page 1 ITALIAN REPUBLIC IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE THE COURT OF BOLOGNA SPECIALIZED SECTION ON INTERNATIONAL PROTECTION
The Court, represented by the Sole Judge Dr. [GIUDICE], following the hearing of 18/05/2026, held pursuant to Art. 127-ter of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), has pronounced, pursuant to Art. 281-sexies c.p.c., the following
SENTENCE
In the civil case registered under No. [RG CAUSA] RG, initiated by: * [RICORRENTE 1], born in São Paulo/SP (Brazil) on 29/04/1958, residing there at via [INDIRIZZO], São Paulo/SP Brazil; ZIP Code: 05693-000; RG: [DOCUMENTO IDENTITÀ]; CPF: [CPF]; * [RICORRENTE 2], born in São Paulo/SP (Brazil) on 23/05/1978, residing at via [INDIRIZZO] (Brazil) ZIP Code: 09971-650; RG: [DOCUMENTO IDENTITÀ]; CPF: [CPF] in her own name and as the parent exercising parental authority over the minors: * [MINORE 1], born on 17.09.2020 in São Paulo/SP (BRAZIL), CPF: [CPF], and * [MINORE 2], born in São Paulo/SP (BRAZIL) on 12.07.2017, CPF: [CPF]; CLAIMANTS all represented and defended by Atty. [AVVOCATO 1] and Atty. [AVVOCATO 2], with elected domicile at [DOMICILIO ELETTIVO]
against
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR RESPONDENT
with the ex lege intervention of the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
*
* CONCLUSIONS for the Claimants: as per the case file. * CONCLUSIONS for the Respondent: not filed. * CONCLUSIONS for the Public Prosecutor: not filed.
### Page 2 Factual and Legal Grounds for the Decision
By means of an appeal filed pursuant to Art. 281-decies c.p.c. on 28/03/2025, the Claimants, all Brazilian citizens, requested the recognition of Italian citizenship jure sanguinis, declaring themselves to be direct descendants of the Italian citizen [AVO ITALIANO], born in San Martino in Argine (Bologna) on 23/08/1858 (doc. no. 1), who emigrated to Brazil without ever naturalizing as a Brazilian citizen (doc. no. 2).
By decree dated 24/03/2026, the first hearing was scheduled for 18/05/2026, to be held in the written (cartolare) procedure pursuant to Art. 127-ter c.p.c.
The case documents were regularly communicated by the clerk’s office on 25/03/2026 to the Public Prosecutor represented by the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic at the Court of Bologna, who submitted no observations.
The appeal and the subsequent decree scheduling the hearing were regularly served on 03/04/2026 to the Respondent, which did not enter an appearance.
On 15/05/2026, written arguments for the hearing of 18/05/2026 were filed. The case is ready for a decision given its purely documentary nature.
As a preliminary matter, the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of Bologna is undisputed, pursuant to Article 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.”
On this point, it is documented that the Claimants reside abroad, specifically in Brazil, and that the place of birth of the Italian ancestor is San Martino in Argine, in the province of Bologna. Therefore, jurisdiction lies with this Specialized Section on Immigration, International Protection, and Free Movement of EU Citizens of the Court of Bologna.
The monocratic nature of the case is also undisputed pursuant to Art. 3, paragraph 4-d, of Decree-Law No. 13 of February 17, 2017, which provides that: “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.”
The powers of attorney appear regular: the Claimants acted in court represented by a defender appointed via regular powers of attorney executed abroad. Indeed, it must be recalled that: “a special power of attorney executed abroad is null, for the purposes of Art. 12 of Law No. 218 of 1995, if it is not accompanied by its translation and the translation of the notarization certifying that the signature was affixed in the notary’s presence by a person whose identity the notary verified, as the general principle requiring translation into Italian by an expert applies to preparatory acts of the proceedings” (Court of Cassation, Joint Sections, Judgment No. 2866/2021; Cass. No. 8174/2018; Cass. No. 11165/2015).
The subject matter of this case concerns the verification of the prerequisites for recognizing the Italian citizenship by descent of the Claimants from an Italian-born ancestor.
### Page 3 As a preliminary matter, it is observed that jurisdiction in matters of citizenship is of a contentious nature, and the trial on the merits presupposes a dispute over a right or, in any case, the need to have a legal situation determined against an opposing party that is objectively subject to uncertainty (Art. 100 c.p.c.). Therefore, the interest of the Claimants in seeking the recognition of their right before the judicial authority must be recognized.
It must be premised that, given that the date of filing of the appeal was after 23:59 on 27/03/2025, the new legislation on citizenship introduced by Decree-Law No. 36/2025 is indisputably applicable to this case. The Constitutional Court recently ruled on this legislation following a referral order from the Court of Turin. This affects the merits of the claim.
It must be noted that Art. 3-bis of Law No. 91/1992, introduced by Decree-Law No. 36/2025, established a derogation from the rule of transmission of citizenship jure sanguinis under Art. 1 et seq. of Law No. 91/1992, stating that a person born abroad who possesses another citizenship does not acquire Italian citizenship. In such a case, Italian citizenship may only be transmitted jure sanguinis if a judicial or administrative application was submitted prior to the date indicated above (Art. 3-bis letters a, a-bis, b), or if the applicant can claim a first-degree (parent) or second-degree (grandparent) ancestor who possesses, or possessed at the time of death, exclusively Italian citizenship (Art. 3-bis letter c), or finally, if the parent or adopter resided in Italy for at least two consecutive years after acquiring Italian citizenship and before the birth or adoption of the child (Art. 3-bis letter d, a circumstance not alleged in the present case).
By press release dated 12/03/2026, following the hearing in which the exception of unconstitutionality raised by the Court of Turin was discussed, the Communication and Press Office of the Constitutional Court announced that the issues were deemed by the panel of judges to be partly unfounded and partly inadmissible.
In particular, the press release states that: “the Court declared unfounded the challenges by which the Court of Turin, invoking Article 3 of the Constitution,… the distinction between those who applied for the determination of citizenship before March 28, 2025, and those who applied after, and on the other hand, the violation of vested rights… The Court also declared unfounded the issue raised regarding the violation of Article 9 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)… The Court furthermore declared inadmissible the question raised concerning the violation of Article 15, paragraph 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948… Finally, the question raised concerning the violation of Article 3, paragraph 2, of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)… was declared inadmissible.”
On 30/04/2026, Judgment No. 63/2026 was published, with which the Constitutional Court extensively detailed the grounds underlying the decision summarized in the press release. These grounds are deemed sufficient to overcome the other challenges raised by the Claimants, which therefore appear manifestly unfounded.
### Page 4 It is important to emphasize that the Constitutional Court highlights how the previous regime departed significantly from the constitutional model of citizenship, as it: “allowed, in fact, participation in political decisions concerning the community even by those who had not contributed to its progress, did not participate in its common destiny, and could easily escape the sacrifices and obligations deriving from such decisions,” and that the principle of legitimate expectation is always subject to the normal balancing typical of all constitutional principles, which in this case was exercised reasonably by the legislature in view of the objective of the new rules, found in the “need for ‘effective links with the Republic’, in order to restore the connection between people, sovereignty, and territory,” an interest that “aligns with the constitutional framework outlining the characteristics of citizenship.”
The Constitutional Court further adds that: “The weight of such expectation, however, is weakened by the following circumstances. The essential element to highlight is that Art. 3-bis does not affect consolidated positions, i.e., the status and rights of those who have already been recognized as Italian citizens, nor the position of those who submitted an application or received an appointment. Consistent with the preamble, the expectation of these individuals, even if lacking real links with Italian society, was deemed by the legislature to prevail over the interest underlying the principle of effectiveness. Citizenship is a composite subjective position, whose focal point is a status to which rights and duties are connected. While it is true that status is acquired at birth from an Italian citizen, it is also true that, for individuals born abroad of Italian origin, it is a status that necessarily requires verification (administrative or judicial), in the absence of which they do not enjoy the status of an Italian citizen. For none of the recipients of the new discipline is there legal certainty regarding their status as Italian citizens. On the contrary, for all recipients of Art. 3-bis, there is certainty that, since their status had not been recognized, they could not concretely enjoy the rights nor were they concretely subject to the duties incumbent upon Italian citizens.”
The Court’s arguments permit the dismissal of the complaints raised by the Claimants, which are challenges explicitly addressed in the judgment under review.
Regarding the principle of non-retroactivity of laws, it must be added that it enjoys constitutional-level protection only in criminal matters under Art. 25 of the Constitution, whereas in civil matters, Art. 11 of the Preliminary Provisions (preleggi) is of ordinary legislative rank. Therefore, nothing prevents a legislative act of equal rank (such as a Decree-Law) from derogating from the general rule, ordering the retroactivity of the introduced regulatory changes.
Turning to the examination of the present case, the scenario under review falls within Art. 3-bis, paragraph 1, letter c), of Law No. 91/1992, which allows a foreigner who has “a first- or second-degree ancestor” who “possesses, or possessed at the time of death, exclusively Italian citizenship” to obtain recognition of Italian citizenship.
That being premised, the appeal does not merit acceptance for the reasons set out below.
From the documentation submitted in the case files, supporting the genealogical lineage detailed on pages 2 to 3 of the introductory appeal, it appears that the ancestor [AVO ITALIANO] is not a first- or second-degree ancestor of the Claimants; therefore, the limit on generational steps introduced by the recent reform is not respected.
The Claimants are indeed descendants of the third, fourth, and fifth degree from the Italian ancestor. The appeal, therefore, cannot be accepted.
For completeness, there is also no exclusion circumstance, provided by the new legislation for the recognition of citizenship following an application, accompanied by the necessary documentation, presented to the competent consular office or mayor on the day indicated by the appointment
### Page 5 communicated to the interested party by the competent office by 23:59, Rome time, on the same date of March 27, 2025. The mere communication of having been placed on the waiting lists is not sufficient.
In light of the outcome of the case, considering also the recent legislative intervention on the subject, the constitutional issues raised, and the rulings of the Constitutional Court, the prerequisites under Art. 92 c.p.c. for the complete compensation of litigation costs are deemed to be met.
P.Q.M. (Therefore) The Court, every other request, objection, and deduction dismissed or absorbed, definitively pronouncing: 1. DECLARES the default of the Ministry of the Interior. 2. REJECTS the appeal for the reasons set forth in the grounds of the decision. 3. DECLARES the complete compensation of litigation costs.
Bologna, dated 19/05/2026
The Honorary Judge Dr. [GIUDICE]
