Catanzaro Court Rules on Citizenship by Iure Sanguinis

A decision n. 3704/2026 of the Catanzaro Court, published on 28/09/2026, analyzed questions of competence, admissibility, and procedure in a case for recognition of Italian citizenship by iure sanguinis filed by a requester residing abroad and on behalf of their minor child, focusing mainly on procedural points and leaving the final dispositive portion out of the excerpt published, according to the decision text published by Diritto Pratico (https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenze.html?c=https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenza/tribunale/catanzaro/2026/3704.html#e2be8).

Summary of the decision — Catanzaro Court, Italian citizenship, and Tajani Decree

• The decision n. 3704/2026 of the Catanzaro Court was published on 28/09/2026, according to the decision text published by Diritto Pratico (link above).
• The case concerns a request for recognition of iure sanguinis presented by one applicant and another on behalf of their minor child.
• The Ministry of the Interior, as the resisting party, did not contest the merits of the right sought, but requested a suspension of the proceedings based on a constitutional issue raised by the Tribunale di Bologna. The Catanzaro judge noted the supervening decision of the Constitutional Court (s. 142/2025, 24/06/2025) and decided not to maintain the suspension.
• The Court declared its competence invoking art. 4, co.5, of decree-law n.13/2017, as the applicants reside abroad and because the Italian ancestor was born within the jurisdiction of that court.
• Importantly: the court reaffirmed that the prior administrative attempt — or the lapse of the consular 730-day period — is not a condition of procedibilità (proceedings admissibility) for the legal action for recognition, aligning with favorable understanding of direct access to the judiciary. This understanding should be contextualized in light of recent legislative changes (see below).
• The excerpt published from the ruling focuses on procedural and jurisdictional questions; the final dispositive (definitive recognition or rejection) is not contained in the portion published, per the excerpt available from Diritto Pratico.

What changed in practice for Brazilian families

• For Brazilian descendants of Italians, the decision indicates that applicants residing abroad may commence directly in the judiciary with a request for recognition of citizenship, without prior submission to the consulate being, by itself, a mandatory precondition to filing.
• Caution: the legislative framework changed with the Tajani Decree (DL 36/2025, converted into Law 74/2025). This decree restricted the consular route, limiting it to children and grandchildren of Italians, and introduced retroactive effects on substantive law reaching later generations (great-grandchildren and beyond). As a result, many people of more distant generations may have had their citizenship rights practically extinguished by the decree. This is a restriction that harms applicants of distant generations; the decree should not be interpreted automatically as “opening” the judicial path in terms of retroactive rights.
• The court’s understanding of the 730-day consular deadline refers only to a procedural condition for the court; however, due to the Tajani Decree, those who are a great-grandchild or generation later may be barred from material recognition by the new norm, and the consular route has become inaccessible for these generations.
• Territorial competence remains determined per the birthplace of the Italian ancestor, in accordance with art. 4, co.5, d.l. 13/2017 — thus Brazilian families should identify the comune of origin of the ancestor to know which court will be competent. Note: administrative recognition in the comune for foreign applicants seeking jure sanguinis has, in most cases, been closed by legislation/interpretation in force since Decree 36/2025; therefore, consulting the comune does not replace legal analysis on administrative feasibility.

Implications about constitutional challenges and the legal context

• The suspension request from the Tribunale di Bologna, which raised a constitutional question, lost practical effect for the Catanzaro case after the Constitutional Court issued sentence n. 142/2025, cited by the judge. This does not prevent other constitutional questions from being raised in future proceedings.
• It is essential to distinguish procedural effects (e.g., suspension of a proceeding) from effects of material law: the Tajani Decree contains provisions that retroactively affect births and may exclude citizenship recognition for those who, prior to the law, possessed the right from birth. Proceedings filed before the decree’s entry into force are expressly protected by the text of the law, but the question of material retroactivity of the decree — i.e., the declaration that certain people “were never Italians” — is the central and controversial point in subsequent litigation.
• The Sezioni Unite of the Court of Cassation have binding force, and the Constitutional Court decisions play a central role; tracking jurisprudence is essential to assess litigation risks and procedural strategies.

Timelines, evidence, and practical steps to build the case

• Even though a prior administrative attempt is not mandatory for filing, it is advisable to attach from the outset of the case all documentary evidence:
  • birth and marriage certificates of the Italian ancestor;
  • naturalization records (or proof of non-naturalization) of the ancestor;
  • certificates of the applicants, sworn translations, and apostilles as per the Hague Convention.
• The judicial route may be appropriate when there are long consular delays or when the consular route is not viable for the applicant generation; however, after the Tajani Decree, the material possibility of recognition for great-grandchildren and later generations is seriously affected by the decree’s retroactivity. Duration and outcome depend on the quality of documentary evidence, legal argument, and the generational framework vis-à-vis the Tajani Decree.
• Verifying the comune of origin of the ancestor is essential practice: correctly identifying the birthplace municipality of the Italian forebear defines the court’s competence and can speed up the process.
• For practical guidance on documents and process, the public can consult materials from the portal on Italian Citizenship and experiences in Life in Italy.

What to watch for before acting

• Confirm the existence and regularity of certificates of the ancestor and descendants, arrange translations and apostilles, and obtain powers of attorney and necessary legal representations to act in the Italian court.
• Consult with a lawyer specializing in Italian citizenship to determine whether it is preferable to attempt via administrative channels or to proceed directly with a court action. In many cases since the Tajani Decree, the consular route has become inaccessible for generations beyond grandchildren; moreover, administrative recognition in the comune is no longer an effective route for foreign applicants in many cases.
• Monitor constitutional decisions and legislative changes: the ruling explicitly cites the Constitutional Court decision (s. 142/2025), and the legal landscape remains sensitive to judicial interpretations after the Tajani Decree.

"Art. 4, co.5, d.l. 13/2017" — cited by the Court as the territorial competence basis for actions brought by residents abroad.

The Catanzaro Court’s decision (n. 3704/2026) reinforces the possibility of direct access to the judiciary for requests for recognition iure sanguinis by applicants abroad and clarifies important procedural points, though the final dispositive on the merits is not published in the excerpt available from Diritto Pratico (https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenze.html?c=https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenza/tribunale/catanzaro/2026/3704.html#e2be8).

Final note: given the sensitive nature of the normative matter (retroactive effects of DL 36/2025 / Law 74/2025), it is advisable to phrase statements about the practical effects of the Tajani Decree with caution and consult specialized legal counsel before drawing conclusions about procedural strategies.