Italian Citizenship — Legal Update
Palermo Court Upholds Italian Citizenship Despite Decree 36/2025: What the February 2026 Ruling Means for Descendants
MG Law Firm — Published July 2026 — Sources: Tribunale di Palermo (Feb. 13, 2026); Avv. Vincenzo Crisci analysis (avvocatomassimoferrante.it, May 31, 2026); Revista Insieme (Feb. 24, 2026)
Key Takeaway
On February 13, 2026, the Tribunale di Palermo declared five Argentine descendants of Italians (the Boveri family) to be Italian citizens — even though the case was filed after Decree-Law 36/2025 (Law 74/2025) was already in force. The court did not reject the new law: it applied its exceptions, finding the applicants had documented prior attempts to initiate the consular procedure via Prenot@mi and formal written communication. This ruling does not reopen the general route — but shows that documented prior initiative can still succeed under the new framework.
Since March 28, 2025, the Italian citizenship landscape has been defined by a single legislative event: Decree-Law 36/2025, the so-called “Tajani Decree,” which restricted automatic jure sanguinis recognition to descendants within two generations of an Italian-born ancestor. For millions of descendants in Argentina, Brazil, the United States, and beyond, the reform appeared to close a door that had been open for decades.
A February 2026 ruling from the Tribunale di Palermo offers one of the first definitive judicial answers to a critical question: can Italian courts still grant citizenship under the new legal framework? The answer, in specific documented circumstances, is yes — but the reasoning matters as much as the outcome.
What Decree-Law 36/2025 (Law 74/2025) Changed
Published in the Gazzetta Ufficiale on March 28, 2025 and converted into Law 74/2025 on May 24, 2025, the Tajani Decree introduced a general prohibition on citizenship recognition for individuals born abroad who hold another citizenship — with limited statutory exceptions.
The prior system had allowed jure sanguinis transmission without generational limits, provided the chain was unbroken. The new framework restricts automatic recognition to those whose Italian-born parent or grandparent held exclusively Italian citizenship at death.
Critically, the law includes transitional provisions: applicants who had already initiated the administrative procedure before March 28, 2025 — or who can demonstrate equivalent diligent prior conduct — may still access recognition under the former rules, or qualify for exceptions within the new ones. These exceptions are tightly defined and have become the central battleground in Italian courts.
The Palermo Case: Who Were the Applicants?
The applicants were five members of the Boveri family, residents of the province of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Their case was examined by the Sezione Specializzata in materia di Immigrazione of the Tribunale di Palermo, presided over by magistrata onoraria Carmela Caranna.
The Ministero dell’Interno raised an immediate procedural objection: the case had been registered at 19:29 on March 28, 2025 — after the Decree had already entered into force. The tribunal confirmed this reading and proceeded to evaluate the case under the new legal framework, not the prior one.
This temporal acknowledgment is significant: the court did not attempt to apply the old rules by interpreting the decree as entering into force the following day (an argument raised in some other proceedings). It accepted the new law applied and moved directly to the question of exceptions.
How the Court Applied the New Law — and Still Recognised Citizenship
The core of the ruling lies in what the court found within the new law itself. Law 74/2025 does not prohibit citizenship recognition in all cases involving descendants born abroad with dual citizenship. It establishes a general prohibition, then carves out specific exceptions — including for applicants who had already taken concrete steps to initiate the procedure before the reform’s operative date.
The Boveri family was able to produce two categories of evidence that the court considered decisive:
- ►Documented Prenot@mi attempts: repeated attempts to book a citizenship appointment through the official Italian government scheduling platform at the Consolato Generale d’Italia in Buenos Aires, all of which failed due to the absence of available slots
- ►Formal written communication to the consulate: a documented written submission to the consulate sent before the reform’s critical operative date, establishing that the applicants had manifested their intent to initiate the procedure
The court concluded that these acts, taken together, constituted sufficient evidence of prior diligent initiative to bring the case within the statutory exceptions of Law 74/2025. The five applicants were declared Italian citizens. The Ministero dell’Interno was ordered to proceed with the necessary inscriptions in the civil registry. Court costs were fully compensated, with the court noting the novelty of the subject matter as justification.
Important: This ruling is not a general reopening of jure sanguinis citizenship claims. The court applied Law 74/2025 in full and found the exceptions satisfied on specific documented facts. Whether similar documentation in another applicant’s file would produce the same result depends on the quality of evidence, the consulate involved, and the judge’s assessment. This should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with qualified legal assistance.
The Same Judge, Two Opposite Outcomes: What This Tells Us
One of the most instructive aspects of the February 2026 ruling is that magistrata onoraria Carmela Caranna had issued a contrary decision just days earlier in similar cases — rejecting citizenship claims filed under comparable circumstances and applying the restrictions of Decree 36/2025 directly.
These two decisions from the same judge are not contradictory in legal terms. Both apply Law 74/2025 consistently. The divergence lies entirely in the quality of evidence:
- ►Where applicants could not document prior initiative: the new restrictions were applied and citizenship was denied
- ►Where applicants could produce documented evidence of Prenot@mi attempts and formal consulate communication: the exceptions were engaged and citizenship recognised
The practical implication: under the current legal framework, the outcome of a citizenship claim may turn on a screenshot, a dated email, or a certified postal delivery confirmation. Documentation management has become a core dimension of citizenship litigation strategy in 2026.
What’s Pending at the Constitutional Court and Cassazione
The Palermo ruling sits within a rapidly evolving judicial environment. Two higher courts are actively engaged:
| Court | Issue under review | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Corte Costituzionale | Compatibility of Law 74/2025 with principles of equality, legitimate expectations, and reasonableness (Art. 3 Cost.) | Proceedings pending as of mid-2026 |
| Corte di Cassazione (Sezioni Unite) | Interpretive questions on transitional provisions and scope of restrictions; consular delay as legal justification for court action | Sezioni Unite hearing: April 14, 2026; decision pending |
| Cassazione n. 13818/2026 | Consular obstacles = legitimate basis for direct judicial action on citizenship | Issued May 12, 2026 — established principle |
Court of Cassation Order n. 13818/2026 has already established that the inability to book a consular appointment due to administrative obstacles constitutes a legitimate legal justification for filing directly in court — a principle directly relevant to cases where applicants were frozen out by the consular backlog before or during the reform period.
A ruling by the Sezioni Unite would provide nationwide binding guidance to courts of first instance, potentially standardising outcomes that currently vary between tribunals and individual judges. A Constitutional Court decision striking down provisions of Law 74/2025 could, depending on its scope, affect thousands of pending proceedings. Both are awaited with significant attention by the Italian citizenship legal community.
Key Considerations for Applicants and Descendants
- ►The Palermo ruling does not reinstate the pre-2025 regime. It is an application of Law 74/2025 that found the statutory exceptions satisfied. The general prohibition remains in force for those who cannot demonstrate equivalent documented prior initiative.
- ►Documentation quality is now determinative. Screenshots of failed Prenot@mi booking attempts, dated formal correspondence with the consulate, certified email receipts, and any other timestamped evidence of pre-March 2025 initiative have become critical legal assets in citizenship cases.
- ►Judicial inconsistency is a real risk. Courts of first instance are applying the same legal framework but reaching different outcomes. This creates significant uncertainty for pending and prospective cases until the Sezioni Unite or Constitutional Court provides binding guidance.
- ►The Constitutional Court proceedings could change everything. If the Corte Costituzionale declares provisions of Law 74/2025 unconstitutional, pending proceedings could be directly affected. This scenario should be tracked carefully by anyone currently managing an active citizenship case.
- ►Great-grandparent-based claims remain excluded from the standard route. The Palermo ruling changed nothing in this respect. For applicants whose closest Italian ancestor is a great-grandparent or further removed, the path forward is narrow and must be individually assessed against the specific transitional provisions and any emerging constitutional jurisprudence.
Related: Italian Citizenship by Descent: Complete Legal Guide (2026) — who qualifies under the post-2025 regime, document requirements, consulate vs. court routes, and the grandfathering clause explained. And: Court of Cassation n. 13818/2026 on Consular Delays — the May 2026 ruling protecting applicants blocked by the administrative backlog.
Italian Citizenship Assessment
Do the Palermo Exceptions Apply to Your Case?
The Palermo ruling demonstrates that outcomes under Law 74/2025 depend critically on documented evidence of prior initiative. MG Law Firm reviews your timeline, documentation, and procedural history to assess whether transitional provisions or exceptions apply to your situation — before recommending a legal strategy. Managed in English, remotely, for international clients.
Request a Citizenship AssessmentFrequently Asked Questions
What did the Palermo Tribunal rule in February 2026 on Italian citizenship?
On February 13, 2026, the Sezione Specializzata in materia di Immigrazione of the Tribunale di Palermo declared five Argentine descendants (the Boveri family) to be Italian citizens — even though the case was filed after Decree-Law 36/2025 was in force. The court applied the Decree’s own exceptions, finding the applicants had demonstrated prior documented initiative to initiate the consular procedure.
Does the Palermo ruling mean I can still get Italian citizenship after the 2025 reform?
The ruling does not overturn Law 74/2025 or reopen the general route. It shows that the law’s own exceptions can be successfully argued where sufficient documented prior initiative exists. Whether these exceptions apply to a specific situation must be assessed individually on the facts and documentation available.
What exceptions within Decree 36/2025 did the Palermo Tribunal apply?
The exception covering applicants who had made genuine prior attempts to initiate the consular procedure before the reform’s operative date. The Boveri family proved repeated failed Prenot@mi booking attempts and a formal written communication to the Buenos Aires consulate. The court considered this evidence sufficient to satisfy the exception under Law 74/2025.
Why did the same Palermo judge issue opposite rulings in similar cases?
Both rulings applied the same law. The different outcomes reflect different evidence quality. Where prior documented initiative was absent, the restrictions applied and citizenship was denied. Where documentation of Prenot@mi attempts and formal consulate contact was produced, the exceptions were satisfied and citizenship recognised. The same legal framework produces different results depending entirely on what the applicant can prove.
What is pending at the Italian Constitutional Court on the 2025 citizenship reform?
As of mid-2026, proceedings are pending before the Corte Costituzionale challenging the compatibility of Law 74/2025 with constitutional principles of equality, legitimate expectations, and reasonableness. A ruling could affect thousands of pending proceedings. The outcome and timing remain uncertain and must be monitored.
What did the Court of Cassation n. 13818/2026 establish on citizenship and consular delays?
Issued May 12, 2026, Cassazione n. 13818/2026 established that consular administrative obstacles — such as the inability to book an appointment — constitute a legitimate legal justification for filing a citizenship claim directly before a court without first having submitted a formal administrative application. This may be relevant for applicants frozen out by the consular backlog before or during the reform period.
Can documented consular delays still help me apply for Italian citizenship after the 2025 reform?
Both the Palermo ruling and Cassazione n. 13818/2026 support the principle that documented consular obstacles are legally relevant. However, the application of transitional exceptions under Law 74/2025 is highly fact-specific and subject to ongoing judicial development. Whether your documentation satisfies the applicable exception requires a case-by-case legal assessment before proceeding.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The legal framework for Italian citizenship by descent is subject to significant judicial and legislative evolution as of 2026. Rules may vary depending on individual circumstances. A qualified legal assessment is recommended before proceeding. Published: July 2026. Sources: Tribunale di Palermo, sentenza February 13, 2026; avvocatomassimoferrante.it (Avv. Vincenzo Crisci), May 31, 2026; Revista Insieme, February 24, 2026.
