Published: May 2026  |  Author: Avv. Salvatore Aprigliano  |  Aprigliano International Law Firm   

Italian citizenship by descent after Law 74/2025: Why legal strategy matters in Post-Tajani litigation

Short answer

The Tribunale Ordinario di Bologna has issued judgment no. 4038/2026, published on May 13, 2026, recognizing Italian citizenship by descent for a U.S.-born applicant and his minor daughter, respectively third and fourth generation descendants of an Italian ancestor.

The case was filed in September 2025, after the March 27, 2025 cutoff and after the entry into force of Decree-Law 36/2025, later converted into Law 74/2025, commonly referred to as the Tajani Decree.

This is the second favorable Bologna ruling in a post-reform Italian citizenship by descent / jure sanguinis case handled by Aprigliano International Law Firm.

The ruling is important because it confirms that, in post-Tajani jure sanguinis litigation, courts may examine whether an applicant had taken concrete and documented steps toward recognition before March 27, 2025, even without a consular appointment.

It is also important for another reason: post-reform citizenship cases are no longer ordinary document-review cases. They increasingly require a tailored litigation strategy, built around the applicant’s factual history, evidentiary record, constitutional arguments, procedural posture, and, where relevant, EU-law issues.

This article is not legal advice. Readers should not treat it as a promise of success in similar cases.

The ruling recognized Italian citizenship by descent for applicants born in the United States, whom the 2025 reform’s new restrictions had directly impacted.

We are publishing and discussing this ruling because it is another concrete example of a post-reform Italian court decision recognizing citizenship by descent after the Tajani Decree (the first one was this).

To our knowledge, Aprigliano International Law Firm is currently among the few law firms publicly documenting favorable post-Tajani jure sanguinis judgments with full case identifiers, including the court, judgment number, publication date, and judge’s name.

We believe this transparency matters. In an unsettled area of law, applicants should distinguish between general commentary, theoretical legal opinions, and actual court decisions in which Italian courts recognized citizenship after the 2025 reform.

Disclosure: Aprigliano International Law Firm acted as counsel of record for the applicants in this case.

This article serves informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing here constitutes a promise, guarantee, or prediction of success in any other case.

The judgment discussed here is a first-instance ruling. It is not binding precedent. It may be appealed. Other courts may reach different conclusions, even in cases that appear similar from the outside.

We are sharing the redacted judgment because the Public Prosecutor’s Office appeared in the proceedings, the judgment has already been formally notified, and the State is therefore aware of the applicable appeal deadlines. Personal data have been removed.

Because many readers of this website and of the international jure sanguinis community are English-speaking, we are also providing an English translation of relevant parts of the redacted judgment for accessibility and informational purposes. The translation does not replace the original Italian judgment.

The court, judgment number, publication date, and judge’s name are provided so that legal professionals may locate the original Italian decision through the appropriate Italian legal databases.

 

Why this ruling matters for post-Tajani jure sanguinis litigation

This ruling is important because post-reform Italian citizenship by descent cases are no longer ordinary document-review cases.

Before the 2025 reform, many judicial jure sanguinis cases focused primarily on reconstructing the genealogical line, proving the absence of naturalization before the relevant birth, and filing the necessary civil status records, translations, apostilles, and supporting documents.

After Decree-Law 36/2025 and Law 74/2025, many cases now require something more: a litigation strategy.

Counsel must reconstruct, document, organize, and legally present the applicant’s factual history to the court. It is no longer enough simply to file the available civil records and wait for the court to apply the traditional jure sanguinis framework.

Legal arguments have become decisive.

From document review to litigation strategy

In this case, the applicants had taken concrete steps before the March 27, 2025 cutoff. Shortly before the hearing, the firm further developed their position through a specific defensive brief addressing the impact of Constitutional Court ruling no. 63/2026, filed on April 30, 2026.

Although that ruling was not favorable to jure sanguinis applicants in general terms, parts of its reasoning left room to distinguish between applicants who had remained inactive and applicants who had already taken concrete steps before the cutoff date.

That distinction was central to this specific case.

However, this does not mean that only applicants who had already activated the process before March 27, 2025 can pursue post-reform litigation. Cases involving applicants who had not yet formally acted before the cutoff may require a different legal strategy, based on different constitutional, procedural, proportionality, and EU-law arguments.

For this reason, there is no single litigation strategy that applies to every post-reform citizenship case. The legal approach may change significantly depending on the applicant’s generation, family history, consular history, documentary record, timing, reliance on the previous legal framework, and the specific legal issues raised by the reform.

Aprigliano International Law Firm acted as counsel of record in both favorable Bologna post-reform rulings: judgment no. 3335/2026, which the court published on April 17, 2026, and judgment no. 4038/2026, published on May 13, 2026.

Both cases were filed after March 27, 2025. Both resulted in the recognition of Italian citizenship.

The two cases were similar in some respects, but the legal strategies were not identical.In each case, the firm built the arguments around the specific facts, the available documents, the timing of the applicants’ conduct, and the evidentiary and legal record presentable to the court.

This is the key point: post-Tajani jure sanguinis litigation is not only about ancestry. It is about identifying the correct legal path for each applicant and presenting that case through a coherent legal and factual strategy.

What happened in this case 

The adult applicant was born in the United States. His minor daughter was also born in the United States. The family line was therefore a multi-generational jure sanguinis line involving third and fourth generation descendants.

That detail is important because the 2025 reform severely affected applicants born abroad who already hold another citizenship, especially applicants beyond the second generation, unless a statutory exception applies.

The judicial claim was filed in September 2025, after the March 27, 2025 cutoff. Therefore, the case fell within the new restrictive framework introduced by Article 3-bis of Law 91/1992, as amended by Decree-Law 36/2025 and Law 74/2025.

The court found that the applicants had produced sufficient evidence to show that they had already activated the recognition process before the cutoff date.

In particular, the court considered:

• Pre-cutoff communications with consular offices 

• PEC submissions sent before March 27, 2025 

• Attempts to access the competent consular system 

• A legal mandate and representation agreement signed in April 2024, almost one year before the reform 

• Documentary evidence of a clear pre-cutoff intention to seek recognition 

The court described this as a “chiara ed inequivoca volontà” – a clear and unequivocal will – to request recognition of Italian citizenship before March 27, 2025.

That finding was central to the result.

English translation of the relevant passage

The following is an English translation of a relevant passage from the judgment:

“This judge further holds that the plain language of the statutory provision, which refers to a judicial petition (Article 3-bis, letter b), to an application accompanied by the requisite documentation submitted to the competent consular office or to the Mayor (Article 3-bis, letter a), or to an application accompanied by the requisite documentation submitted to the competent consular office or to the Mayor on the date indicated in an appointment communicated to the applicant by the competent office (Article 3-bis, letter a-bis), falls within the circumstances of the present case that legitimize the recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis.

The petitioners have demonstrated and produced documentary evidence, per tabulas, of the submission of a duly formulated application for the recognition of Italian citizenship by way of PEC to the competent Consular Office, on the dates indicated above and in any event prior to March 27, 2025. The legal mandate and representation agreement signed between the parties on April 16–22, 2024 further supports this conclusion.

It is therefore held that said application, formalized and concretized in the manner described above, unquestionably identifies a clear and unequivocal will to seek recognition of Italian citizenship prior to March 27, 2025, and accordingly satisfies the requirements set forth in the applicable legislation, having regard to the principle of legitimate expectation.”

This passage is important because the court did not rely on a vague intention or a general desire to become Italian. It relied on a documented factual record that existed before the reform entered into force.

 

“I wanted to apply” vs. documented conduct 

One of the most important questions after the 2025 reform is this:

What counts as having activated the recognition process before March 27, 2025?

There is not yet a definitive answer.

However, this second Bologna ruling helps clarify the kind of evidence that may matter.

The court did not rely on a private wish or a general interest in Italian citizenship. It relied on documented conduct before the reform.

There is a significant difference between:

“I was thinking about applying someday.” 

and: 

“I had already hired counsel, gathered documents, contacted consular offices, attempted to use the available administrative channels, and created a dated record before the law changed.” 

This ruling belongs to the second category, not the first. 

That does not mean every applicant must have the same evidence. It also does not mean that applicants who did not act before March 27, 2025 have no possible legal arguments.

It means that where pre-cutoff conduct exists, the way that conduct is documented, reconstructed, and legally framed may be decisive.

Why legal strategy matters in post-reform citizenship cases

The second Bologna ruling confirms that post-reform jure sanguinis litigation is not simply about having the correct civil records.

It is about building a legally coherent case around the applicant’s specific situation.

In practical terms, courts may consider:

• when the applicant acted;
• what evidence existed before March 27, 2025;
• whether the applicant attempted to use the consular route;
• whether there were consular communications;
• whether there was a formal legal mandate;
• whether the applicant’s conduct showed reliance on the previous legal framework;
• how the facts were organized and explained;
• how the legal issue was framed under Article 3-bis of Law 91/1992;
• whether constitutional or EU-law issues should be raised.

For this reason, the litigation strategy matters.

A case that appears strong from a genealogical standpoint may still require careful legal construction if the applicant is affected by the 2025 reform. Conversely, a case that appears difficult at first sight may still deserve a serious legal analysis if there are constitutional, procedural, evidentiary, or EU-law arguments that can be developed.

This is especially true in the current phase, where courts are still interpreting the scope of the reform and the case law remains unsettled.

What this ruling does not say 

Because the ruling is favorable, it is important to be clear about its limits.

This ruling does not say that a vague intention is enough.

Nor does it hold that simply wanting Italian citizenship before March 27, 2025 is sufficient.

A Prenot@mi screenshot is not automatically enough.

The same applies to a single email to a consulate.

Collecting documents, by itself, will not always be sufficient.

Nor does this ruling create binding precedent for all post-reform cases.

It does not mean that every applicant affected by the Tajani Decree will succeed in court.

The more cautious reading is this: the stronger, more formal, and more objectively verifiable the evidence of pre-cutoff activity, the stronger the legal argument may become.

But the threshold remains unsettled. 

Prenot@mi and consular dysfunction, and the absence of appointments

A major issue in post-reform Italian citizenship litigation is the role of the consular appointment system.

The new framework refers to formal applications and appointments. But in practice, many applicants were unable to obtain consular appointments because calendars were unavailable, overloaded, or functionally inaccessible for long periods.

That raises a serious legal question:

Can the State rely on the absence of a formal appointment when the State-controlled appointment system made obtaining that appointment practically impossible?

This ruling does not fully resolve that question.

However, it shows that courts may be willing to look at the factual record behind the absence of an appointment. The Bologna court did not say that every failed Prenot@mi attempt is equivalent to a formal appointment. The reasoning was more restrained. It focused on the overall evidence of concrete pre-cutoff activation.

This is why the evidentiary record matters so much.

Applicants should not assume that a screenshot, an email, or a general statement of intent will automatically be sufficient. At the same time, courts may examine the broader factual history of the applicant’s attempts to access the recognition process.

Constitutional Court ruling no. 63/2026 and the next phase of litigation 

This case must also be read alongside Constitutional Court ruling no. 63/2026, filed on April 30, 2026.

Aprigliano International Law Firm respects the ruling and understands that lower courts must address it. However, the firm does not share its reasoning.

In our view, ruling no. 63/2026 appears to requalify Italian citizenship by descent from a status traditionally described in Italian case law as acquired at birth, permanent, imprescriptible, and enforceable at any time, into something closer to a potential right that can be cut off if the person had not crossed a procedural threshold before March 27, 2025.

That is a significant shift.

At the same time, even under ruling no. 63/2026, the distinction between applicants who remained completely inactive and applicants who had already taken concrete steps before the cutoff remains legally relevant.
The Bologna judgment does not overturn the reform. No general exception is created. What it does show is that, in at least some cases, courts may examine whether the applicant had already relied on the previous legal framework before the cutoff.

That is one of the central questions in the next phase of post-Tajani jure sanguinis litigation.

The EU-law dimension

Italian citizenship is not only a domestic legal status. It is also the gateway to European Union citizenship.

For that reason, the 2025 reform may raise EU-law questions in certain cases, especially where the new rules affect the enjoyment or recognition of citizenship rights connected to EU citizenship.

Under Article 267 TFEU, any national court may refer a relevant EU-law question to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

This means that post-reform Italian citizenship cases may develop not only before first-instance Italian courts and higher domestic courts, but also through potential EU-law arguments and preliminary references to the Court of Justice.

The EU-law dimension does not guarantee success and does not replace the need for a case-specific factual and legal analysis. Rather, it forms part of the broader litigation landscape created by the 2025 reform.

 

Why similar cases may have different outcomes 

Some readers have asked why one case may succeed while another apparently similar case fails, sometimes before the same court.

That is a fair question.

The answer is that these cases are highly fact-dependent.

Two applicants may both be third or fourth generation descendants. Both may be from the United States, and both may have tried to access the consular route. The 2025 reform may have affected them in the same way.

But the cases may still be different in court.

Key variables courts may consider

Relevant differences may include:

• the exact timing of the applicant’s conduct;
• the documents available before March 27, 2025;
• whether there were pre-cutoff communications with consular offices;
• whether a formal mandate had been signed;
• whether PEC communications were sent;
• whether the applicant had objectively started the process or merely intended to;
• whether the case was filed before or after specific legal developments;
• how the facts were presented to the court;
• how the legal issues were framed;
• how the Ministry or State defended the case;
• whether constitutional or EU-law arguments were raised.

Small factual and procedural differences can matter significantly in an early and unsettled area of case law.

This is why two cases that look similar from the outside may not be identical in court.

What this means for applicants who acted before March 27, 2025

For applicants who took concrete steps before March 27, 2025, this ruling is encouraging.

It suggests that courts may examine whether the applicant had already activated the recognition process before the cutoff, even if a formal consular appointment had not been obtained.

However, the quality of the evidence is critical.

The strongest cases are likely to be those where the pre-cutoff activity is:

• dated;
• objective;
• documented;
• connected to the recognition process;
• capable of coherent presentation to the court.

Examples may include formal communications, consular correspondence, legal mandates, documentary preparation, PEC submissions, or other evidence showing reliance on the previous legal framework.

Each case must be assessed individually.

What this means for applicants who did not act before March 27, 2025

This ruling should not be misunderstood as saying that only applicants who acted before March 27, 2025 may have a possible judicial path.

The legal strategy may be different for applicants who did not formally activate the recognition process before the cutoff.

Those cases may require other arguments, including constitutional challenges, procedural arguments, proportionality arguments, EU-law arguments, or arguments concerning the nature and effects of the reform.

The existence of a favorable ruling based on pre-cutoff activation does not exhaust the legal debate.

It simply confirms that one category of cases, applicants with documented pre-cutoff activity, may have a specific and potentially stronger evidentiary argument.

Other categories of applicants require different legal analysis.

For this reason, anyone affected by the 2025 reform should avoid assuming that their case is either automatically strong or automatically impossible. The correct question is not only whether the applicant has an Italian ancestor, but which legal path may apply to that specific case.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Frequently asked questions 

What did the second Bologna ruling decide? 

Judgment no. 4038/2026, published on May 13, 2026, recognized Italian citizenship for a U.S.-born applicant and his minor daughter, respectively third and fourth generation descendants of an Italian ancestor. The case was filed in September 2025, after the entry into force of Law 74/2025.

Who handled the case?

Aprigliano International Law Firm acted as counsel of record for the applicants.

Is this the first favorable Bologna ruling after the reform?

No. This is the second favorable Bologna ruling discussed in this context. The first was judgment no. 3335/2026, published on April 17, 2026. Both cases were filed after March 27, 2025 and both resulted in recognition of Italian citizenship.

Is this ruling binding precedent?

No. It is a first-instance ruling. It does not bind other Italian courts and does not guarantee the outcome of other cases.

Does this mean third and fourth generation applicants can still obtain Italian citizenship?

Not automatically. The 2025 reform introduced significant restrictions. However, some applicants may still have judicial arguments depending on their family history, documentary record, timing, pre-cutoff conduct, constitutional issues, procedural issues, or EU-law arguments.

What evidence did the Bologna court consider?

The court considered pre-cutoff communications with consular offices, PEC submissions sent before March 27, 2025, attempts to access the competent consular system, a legal mandate signed in April 2024, and other documentary evidence showing a clear pre-cutoff intention to seek recognition.

What does “pre-cutoff activation” mean?

In this context, pre-cutoff activation refers to concrete, documented steps taken before March 27, 2025 to pursue recognition of Italian citizenship. It may include communications with consular offices, formal submissions, attempts to access the administrative process, legal mandates, and other objective evidence. The exact threshold remains unsettled.

Is a Prenot@mi screenshot enough?

Not necessarily. This ruling does not say that every Prenot@mi screenshot is sufficient. Courts may examine the overall evidentiary record, including whether the applicant’s conduct was formal, dated, objective, and connected to the recognition process.

What if I did not act before March 27, 2025?

Your case may require a different legal strategy. Applicants who did not formally activate the process before the cutoff may need to rely on other arguments, including constitutional, procedural, proportionality, or EU-law arguments. A case-specific legal analysis is necessary.

Can the 2025 reform be challenged under EU law?

Potentially. Italian citizenship is connected to EU citizenship. Under Article 267 TFEU, Italian courts may refer relevant EU-law questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union. This does not guarantee success, but it is part of the legal landscape in post-reform citizenship litigation.

Should I file a court case now?

That depends on your specific situation. Factors may include your generation, family line, naturalization history, consular history, documents, pre-cutoff conduct, timing, and the legal arguments available in your case. You should obtain a case-specific legal assessment before deciding.

 

The full redacted judgment is available here.

Request a case review

If the 2025 Italian citizenship reform affects your situation, you should obtain an individual case assessment.

Relevant factors may include your generation, family line, naturalization history, consular history, documents collected, steps taken before March 27, 2025, and the specific legal arguments available after Law 74/2025.

Aprigliano Law Firm achieved this outcome, assisting descendants in securing recognition of their Italian citizenship rights.