Press Review  |  June 11, 2026

Author: Avv. Salvatore Aprigliano  |  Aprigliano International Law Firm

On June 9, 2026, Good Morning Italy published an article covering two favorable rulings on Italian citizenship by descent issued by the Ordinary Court of Bologna, ruling no. 3335/2026 of April 17, 2026, and ruling no. 4038/2026 of May 13, 2026. Both cases were handled by Aprigliano International Law Firm, and both were filed after the March 27, 2025 cutoff introduced by Decree-Law 36/2025, converted into Law 74/2025,  the so-called Tajani Decree.

Read the original article on Good Morning Italy: goodmorningitaly.com

Did the Tajani Decree end Italian citizenship by descent for those who had already started the process?

In fact, the Tajani Decree has been widely read as closing the door on citizenship by descent for those who did not secure a consular appointment by March 27, 2025. Within days of the reform, headlines declaring a “stop for descendants” and a “final crackdown on jure sanguinis” dominated coverage. According to Avv. Aprigliano, this reading calls for a more careful and less simplified analysis.

The Bologna rulings show that the picture is more nuanced. The court did not limit its analysis to whether the genealogical chain was intact. It asked whether, before the law changed, these applicants had already done something to pursue recognition, and whether that documented conduct retained legal weight under the new framework. In both cases, the answer was yes.

 

Subscribe to our newsletter!

 

Three dimensions that the Bologna rulings bring into focus

1. Documented pre-reform conduct, what counts and what does not

   The first and most immediate dimension concerns a large group of applicants: descendants who, before March 27, 2025, had already taken concrete steps toward citizenship recognition but had not yet secured a consular appointment. The reform penalizes those who had not yet acted, but what does “acting” mean, precisely?

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

   The distinction that mattered was 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.” In the latter case, documented behavior speaks for itself.

2. The Prenot@mi problem and the principle of legitimate expectations

   The second dimension concerns the structural dysfunction of the Prenot@mi system, the platform used to book consular appointments. Many applicants were unable to secure an appointment not because they lacked interest, but because consular calendars were fully booked or effectively inaccessible for years. In one of the Bologna cases, the consulate had communicated that appointments were already scheduled through 2029.

   According to Avv. Aprigliano, this raises a question of fundamental fairness: can the State penalize applicants for failing to complete a process through a system the State itself made nearly impossible to access? The Bologna court did not answer this question in general terms, but it did find that the totality of documented conduct, even without a confirmed appointment, could satisfy the threshold of demonstrated intent. That approach reflects the principle of legitimate expectations: where administrative dysfunction prevented applicants from completing a process they had already started, that dysfunction cannot then be used to extinguish the right.

3. The European law dimension, a path that remains open

   The third dimension is relevant even for those who did not take steps before March 27, 2025. Italian citizenship is not only a national status:  it confers access to European Union citizenship.  The restrictions introduced by the Tajani Decree may therefore raise questions of EU law that Italian courts have not yet fully resolved.

   A judge who considers these doubts well-founded may follow one of two paths: directly disapply the Tajani Decree, recognizing citizenship    under the pre-reform framework; or refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling. On matters of      EU law, European rules prevail over conflicting national legislation. This dimension remains open and is, according to Avv. Aprigliano, currently one of the most significant legal grounds in post-Tajani litigation.

Avv. Aprigliano’s conclusion: it is no longer enough to ask whether an Italian ancestor exists

Overall, the Bologna rulings signal a new phase in post-Tajani citizenship litigation. The most prudent takeaway, according to Avv. Aprigliano, is this: 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. The relevant questions are: which legal path is still viable, with what evidence, before which judge, and at what procedural risk.  As Good Morning Italy reported, Italian citizenship by descent after the Tajani Decree is no longer decided by genealogy alone, it is decided by strategy.

For Aprigliano International Law Firm, which has handled Italian jure sanguinis proceedings for years, including rulings no. 3335/2026 and no. 4038/2026, the priority remains assessing each case individually, avoiding generalized readings and examining the specific circumstances of each applicant.

Bologna Frequently Asked Questions: Italian citizenship by descent and the rulings

Did the Tajani Decree end Italian citizenship by descent for those who had already started the process?

No. The Bologna rulings show that documented pre-reform conduct, PEC communications, consular contacts, a professional mandate, can retain legal weight even in cases filed after March 27, 2025. The outcome depends on the quality and completeness of the documentary record.

What did Good Morning Italy report about these cases?

Good Morning Italy reported on June 9, 2026 that the Ordinary Court of Bologna recognized Italian citizenship by descent in two post-Tajani cases, noting that the manner in which a case is built, the strategy, not only the genealogy, can matter almost as much as the documents themselves.

Who can benefit from the Bologna rulings?

Primarily applicants who took concrete, documented steps before March 27, 2025, even without a confirmed consular appointment. Each case must be assessed individually. Applicants who did not act before the cutoff may still have arguments available under EU law.

What if I never managed to get a consular appointment despite trying?

According to Avv. Aprigliano and the Bologna court’s reasoning, documented attempts to access the consular system, even if unsuccessful,  may still establish legally relevant intent. The principle of legitimate expectations applies where administrative dysfunction prevented applicants from completing a process they had already started.

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 raise EU-law questions. 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.

Are these rulings binding precedent?

No. Rulings no. 3335/2026 and no. 4038/2026 are first-instance decisions. They do not bind other Italian courts. Another judge on similar facts could reach a different conclusion.

What does Aprigliano International Law Firm do for Italian citizenship applicants?

Aprigliano International Law Firm has handled Italian jure sanguinis proceedings for years, including both Bologna rulings covered in this article. The firm’s approach is to assess each applicant’s specific position individually, rather than applying generalized conclusions drawn from any single ruling.

Request a case review If you are unsure whether the Bologna rulings or any other post-Tajani path applies to your situation, a case-specific review is the necessary first step.