Venice Court Recognizes Jurisdiction in Citizenship Recognition Action

The Venice Court, Tribunale di Venezia (sentence no. 18869/2026, published on 13/10/2026), recognized the Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate a citizenship recognition action by jus sanguinis brought by descendants of a grandfather born in Italy on 13/09/1883 and declared the administration (Ministero) contumacious; the excerpt released concerns procedural issues, not the court’s ultimate conclusion on recognizing the citizenship right on the merits, according to the text of the decision published by Diritto Pratico (link at the end). META DESCRIPTION: Venice ruling confirms jurisdiction and admits a jus sanguinis citizenship recognition action; the administration remained contumacious. The merits request evidence.

Summary of the decision: jurisdiction, contumacy, and admissibility

The sentence n. 18869/2026, issued by the Tribunale di Venezia and published on 13/10/2026, acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Court and declared the contumacy of the Ministry, which did not appear despite regular service, according to the text of the decision published by Diritto Pratico (https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenze.html?c=https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenza/tribunale/venezia/2026/18869.html#59f1e). The petitioners sought recognition of Italian citizenship iure sanguinis due to their descent from an Italian grandfather born on 13/09/1883. The disclosed portion focuses on procedural matters — jurisdiction, contumacy of the administration, and admissibility — and does not contain the concluding part about whether the request for recognition of citizenship on the merits was granted or denied.

"Applies the rule provided by legge n. 206/2021, with effects from 22/06/2022, regarding the competence for applicants residing abroad." (adapted from the sentence text provided)

Formal grounds

The Court applied the regime introduced by legge n. 206/2021 (in force since 22/06/2022), which provides, for applicants residing abroad, that the competent court is the Tribunal corresponding to the comune of birth of the father, mother, or the Italian grandfather. By this criterion, the case was assigned to the Tribunale di Venezia, Sezione specialized in immigration matters.

Contumacy of the administration

According to the published excerpt, the Ministry did not appear in court despite regular notification; the Public Prosecutor (Procura) appeared only as a legal intervener and did not submit conclusions. For this reason, the Court declared the administration contumacious, a decision that affects procedural progression but does not replace the need to prove the merits of the citizenship request.

Admissibility of the judicial process

The Court reaffirmed that, in matters of citizenship status (permanent and, as a rule, non-prescriptible), prior administrative route is not required: interested parties residing abroad are entitled to seek direct recognition in court without awaiting (or even receiving a response from) consular or administrative procedures. The published excerpt reinforces the admissibility of the judicial action for this type of request.

Why jurisdiction matters in practice

Determining the proper forum is not merely a formal issue: since 22/06/2022, the rule linking jurisdiction to the comune of birth of the Italian ancestor determines where the action must be filed and can concentrate many cases in certain courts.

• For descendants living in Brazil, this means the action may need to be filed with the Italian Tribunal corresponding to the comune of birth of the father, mother, or grandfather — even if the applicant has never resided in Italy.
• Centralization by comune can increase the caseload of certain specialized Courts, impacting timelines and litigation strategies.

In this case, the file was opened in 2024 and the partial judgment was published on 13/10/2026, indicating an approximate duration of 33 months. This provides a practical reference for how long citizenship recognition actions may take, though timelines vary by Court and the complexity of the evidence.

Documents and evidence highlighted by the decision

The disclosed excerpt references documentary evidence deemed essential for the case:

• Birth certificates (atto di nascita) and annotations in the records of the ancestor’s comune.
• Evidence that the ancestor did not renounce Italian citizenship (no naturalization abroad or lack of a formal loss act).
• Civil documents in the chain (births, marriages, deaths) between the ancestor and the applicant.

Practical recommendations drawn from the decision:

• Request original certificates from the comune of birth of the ancestor and check notes or corrections in the municipal registers.
• Gather the complete documentary chain (atto di nascita of the ancestor, marriage certificates, births of intermediaries up to the applicant).
• Arrange translations and apostilles when required by Italian jurisdiction.
• The lack of administrative response from the consulate does not prevent filing the court action.

For guidance on documents and steps, see also our page on Cidadania Italiana.

The Tajani Decree (DL 36/2025 / L. 74/2025) and what is not in the ruling

The Venice sentence excerpt does not mention the Tajani Decree (DL 36/2025, converted into Law 74/2025). Thus, the decision is based on legge n. 206/2021 and the traditional normative framework (civil code, legge 555/1912, legge 91/1992) as published.

Important for applicants:

• The Tajani Decree/L. 74/2025 introduced significant restrictions to administrative and consular avenues (for example, limiting the consular route to children and grandchildren and placing greater emphasis on the judicial route), as well as controversial provisions regarding material retroactivity. These rules can affect procedural strategy depending on the facts.
• Before filing, it is essential to verify which law applies to the case facts and whether there are effects of later norms on citizenship rights. When in doubt, consulting a specialist in Italian citizenship law is advisable.

Conclusion

The Tribunale di Venezia's sentence n. 18869/2026 is practically relevant for those pursuing citizenship by jus sanguinis: it confirms the criterion of jurisdiction tied to the comune of birth of the ancestor and reinforces the possibility of direct judicial access even without exhausting administrative channels, having declared the administration contumacious in the process. However, the excerpt does not provide the merit's conclusion on the recognition of citizenship, which requires consulting the full text of the ruling or monitoring the case. For those who will litigate, the lesson is twofold: carefully prepare documentary evidence and check the application of post-facts norms to the case.

Source: according to the decision text published by Diritto Pratico — https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenze.html?c=https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenza/tribunale/venezia/2026/18869.html#59f1e.

Read more about Cidadania Italiana and follow other decisions in our Notícias da Itália and articles about Vida na Itália.