Economy Mirror has featured Aprigliano International Law Firm in an article covering two rulings issued by the Ordinary Court of Bologna on Italian citizenship by descent after the Tajani Decree,  ruling no. 3335/2026 of April 17, 2026, and ruling no. 4038/2026 of May 13, 2026. Both cases were handled by the firm and were filed after the March 27, 2025 cutoff introduced by Decree-Law 36/2025, converted into Law 74/2025. Economy Mirror describes the decisions as opening a narrow but significant path for descendants who had already taken concrete steps before the reform came into force.

What does Aprigliano Law Firm on Economy Mirror say about the Tajani Decree?

Economy Mirror Italian citizenship by descent coverage highlights a key point: the Tajani Decree has been widely read as ending recognition for those who missed the March 27, 2025 deadline. But the Bologna rulings tell a more nuanced story. The court did not limit its analysis to whether the genealogical chain was intact. It asked whether, before the law changed, applicants had already done something concrete to pursue recognition, and whether that documented conduct carried legal weight under the new framework.

In both cases, the answer was yes. As Economy Mirror reports, the difference is between saying “sooner or later I wanted to apply”, a private intention impossible to prove, and being able to demonstrate “I had already started applying, using the methods available at the time.”

 

Subscribe to our newsletter!

 

Three dimensions the Bologna rulings bring into focus

1. What documented pre-reform conduct looks like in practice

In both Bologna cases, the court gave decisive weight to a documentary trail predating March 27, 2025: communications with consular offices, emails sent via certified electronic mail (PEC), documented attempts to access the consular booking system, and a professional mandate signed in April 2024, nearly a year before the reform. The court found that this combination established a “clear and unequivocal intent” to seek recognition before the law changed.

This is the evidentiary distinction that decided the cases. Documented behavior, gathering records, retaining a lawyer, writing to the consulate, leaving dated proof, is legally different from a private intention. It is no longer enough to have an Italian ancestor and appear in court: the case must be built around what the applicant actually did before March 27, 2025.

2. The Prenot@mi problem and the limits of the Bologna answer

As Economy Mirror notes, one of the most complicated aspects concerns the Prenotami system, the platform used to book consular appointments. The reform gives weight to applications and appointments formally submitted before the cutoff. Yet many applicants were unable to secure appointments because consular calendars were fully booked or virtually inaccessible for long periods.

The Bologna rulings do not resolve this question universally. They do not hold that every failed attempt is legally equivalent to a formal application. But they establish that, in certain cases, the totality of documented conduct, even without a confirmed appointment, may satisfy the threshold of demonstrated intent. That is a meaningful, if narrow, opening.

3. The European dimension, a path open even for those who did not act

Beyond the question of pre-reform conduct, a European-law argument remains available, including for those who took no steps before March 27, 2025. Italian citizenship grants access to EU citizenship, and the Tajani Decree’s restrictions may raise questions under EU law that Italian courts have not yet fully resolved. A judge who considers those doubts well-founded may directly disapply the Decree or refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union. This dimension remains, according to Aprigliano International Law Firm, one of the most significant open grounds in post-Tajani litigation.

Avv. Aprigliano’s conclusion: it is the strategy that makes the difference

As Aprigliano Law Firm on Economy Mirror makes clear, Italian citizenship by descent after the Tajani Decree is no longer decided by genealogy alone. The Bologna rulings are favorable, but they are not a shortcut for everyone, nor a consolidated shift in case law. They are a signal that, in this new phase, the manner in which a case is framed and the evidence assembled can matter almost as much as the documents themselves.

For those who had already acted before March 27, 2025, solid and verifiable documentation can make all the difference. For those who had not yet moved, the European-law route is currently the most promising ground. In both scenarios, the question is no longer simply whether an Italian ancestor exists: it is which legal path is still viable, with what evidence, before which judge, and at what risk.

For Aprigliano International Law Firm, which handled both Bologna rulings, the priority remains assessing each case individually, avoiding generalized conclusions and examining the specific circumstances of each applicant.

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Economy Mirror report about these cases?

Economy Mirror published an article covering rulings no. 3335/2026 and no. 4038/2026 issued by the Ordinary Court of Bologna, describing them as opening a narrow but significant path for Italian citizenship by descent applicants who had taken concrete steps before the Tajani Decree came into force.

Who handled the Bologna cases?

Both cases were handled by Aprigliano International Law Firm. Ruling no. 3335/2026 was issued on April 17, 2026 before Judge Dott.ssa Natascia Gardini; ruling no. 4038/2026 was issued on May 13, 2026.

What evidence did the court find decisive?

Communications with consular offices, PEC-transmitted emails, documented attempts to access the Prenotami booking system, and a professional mandate signed in April 2024, collectively establishing clear and unequivocal intent to seek recognition before March 27, 2025.

Do these rulings benefit everyone who missed the deadline?

No. These are first-instance rulings and do not bind other courts. They benefit applicants who can demonstrate documented, concrete pre-reform conduct. Those who took no steps before the cutoff will need different arguments, most likely grounded in EU law.

Is there still a path for those who did not act before March 27, 2025?

Yes. The European-law route remains available. Italian citizenship grants EU citizenship, and the Tajani Decree’s restrictions may conflict with EU law protections. A judge may directly disapply the Decree or refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU. A case-specific assessment is required.

What does Aprigliano International Law Firm do for citizenship applicants?

The firm has handled Italian jure sanguinis proceedings for years, including both Bologna rulings. Its approach is to assess each applicant’s specific circumstances individually, identifying which legal path remains viable and building the case around the evidence available.

Request a Case Review

If you are a descendant of an Italian-born ancestor and want to understand whether the Bologna rulings or any other post-Tajani path applies to your situation, find out whether you are eligible:

Check Your Eligibility →