Tribunale di Venezia decides on Italian citizenship by jus sanguinis

CATEGORIA: citizenship

CONTENT:

The Ordinary Court of Venezia judged the recognition of Italian citizenship by descent applying Law n. 91/1992, according to the text of the decision published by Diritto Pratico. The annotated decision addresses a complex matter in a legal context altered by D.L. 36/2025 (Decree "Tajani", converted into Law 74/2025); therefore it is necessary to clearly distinguish what the Court decided in the concrete case from the general scope of the new norms.

Summary of the decision

The sentence of Tribunale di Venezia, no. 18581/2026, published on 09/10/2026, held the action brought under art. 281‑undecies c.p.c. to be procedente, in which a mother and her minor child sought recognition of the status of Italian citizen by descent from the grandfather born in Italy. According to the text of the decision published by Diritto Pratico, the defendant did not appear (default), and the Court applied Law n. 91/1992 (ius sanguinis), recognizing that the petition was properly supported.

The Court also declared that the burden of proof regarding any loss of citizenship (e.g., renunciation) rested on the opposing party in the specific case. The decision expressly indicates that Law 74/2025 (conversion of D.L. 36/2025), in force since 28/03/2025, did not apply to the proceedings due to the timing of the filing (processes filed before the law’s effective date were protected regarding formal application), as stated in the decision published by Diritto Pratico.

Source: Diritto Pratico — https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenze.html?c=https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenza/tribunale/venezia/2026/18581.html#bdc6e

Main legal grounds

• Jurisdiction: the Court of Venice declared territorial competence due to the birth comune of the Italian ancestor, based on the applicable rules to the case and the relevant legislation (for example, Law no. 206/2021 in its effects on administrative/jurisdictional competence). This is a factual basis for the specific case.
• Applicable rule: the court applied art. 1 of Law 91/1992, which provides acquisition of citizenship by parentage (ius sanguinis). The Court reiterated that citizenship is transmitted by birth to the child of an Italian citizen, except for justified causes of loss that must be proven.
• Evidence required: in this case, the applicants demonstrated the lineage through birth and other certificates; the Court held that the claim of loss (renunciation) would require evidence by the party asserting it. It is important to note, however, that there are specific legal situations — for example, as provided in art. 12 §2 of Law 555/1912 — where loss can occur automatically in relation to minor children when the father naturalizes abroad (the so‑called 'minor issue' regime). This exception was not contradicted by a note in the Court’s summary and should be considered in each case.
• Cited jurisprudence: the decision mentions precedents from the Court of Cassation that, in various rulings, require proof of voluntary and explicit renunciation to constitute loss of citizenship in many contexts. However, the practical application of these precedents may vary depending on factual circumstances (for example, whether the descendant was a minor at the time of the ancestor’s naturalization).

"Citizenship by ius sanguinis rests on lineage; any proof of loss is up to the party who asserts it," adapted from the sentence (Tribunale di Venezia, sentence no. 18581/2026), as published in Diritto Pratico.

What this means in practice for Brazilian families

• Through the judiciary: the judicial avenue for recognition remains viable, and in cases like the one analyzed, courts may recognize citizenship when the lineage is proven and there is no evidence of loss. However, it is essential to consider legislative changes introduced by D.L. 36/2025 (Law 74/2025) and the debate over retroactivity.
• Limitations introduced by the 2025 Decree/Law: Law 74/2025 restricted administrative and consular avenues in several aspects (for example, consular pathways became inaccessible for great-grandchildren and later generations — access via consular channels limited to children and grandchildren). Additionally, the decree contains provisions whose retroactive reach is debated and could, in material terms, declare that certain people “were never” Italian, impacting rights attributed at birth.
• On naturalizations of ancestors: generally, mere naturalization of an ancestor does not automatically strip citizenship from all descendants — however there is a specific rule (art. 12 §2 of Law 555/1912) providing automatic loss for minor children when the father naturalizes abroad. Each factual situation requires detailed analysis.
• Nature of the judicial decision: when citizenship is recognized in court, it often secures meaningful rights, but assertions of an absolute, permanent, and imprescriptible character must be weighed against legislative changes (such as D.L. 36/2025) and debates over material retroactivity. In short: judicial recognitions protect rights but do not automatically resolve all legal questions raised by the new norms.
• Effect of default: the absence of a formal appearance by the resisting party facilitated favorable accommodation of the request in the specific case; this does not guarantee identical results in processes with contestation and evidence presented by the Administration or State.

Impact of Law 74/2025 (Decree Tajani / D.L. 36/2025)

• Protection for filed processes: the decree/law provides protection regarding formal application for processes filed before its entry into force (28/03/2025). Thus, some courts have decided to apply the prior regime to ongoing cases. The Tribunale di Venezia, in the case cited, invoked this temporal protection to say that Law 74/2025 did not apply to the concrete process.
• Material retroactivity: however, the most sensitive and widely debated legal point is the material retroactivity of the decree — the assertion, contained in the new norm and the subject of controversy, that those born outside Italy and not a child or grandchild of an Italian “were never” Italian. This is a change to the substantive law, and its validity (especially its compatibility with constitutional principles and with precedents of Sezioni Unite) is contested and has been the subject of judicial and constitutional review. The Venezia Court, according to the decision summary, limited itself to evaluating the temporal protection for proceedings; it did not resolve comprehensively for all cases the question of material retroactivity.
• Practical consequence: for processes filed before 28/03/2025, formal application of the decree may be precluded, while for new applications filed after that date, the regime introduced by Law 74/2025 may be applied. Additionally, the possibility of material retroactivity advancing in higher courts means that applicants and lawyers should monitor decisions by Sezioni Unite, the Corte di Cassazione, and the Corte Costituzionale, as higher‑level rulings can affect substantive rights.

Procedure and practical recommendations

• When preparing a judicial action for recognition, gather birth, marriage, and death certificates establishing the line of kinship up to the Italian ancestor, along with documents showing the absence of express renunciation by the ancestor when applicable.
• Check the specific situation regarding art. 12 §2 of Law 555/1912 (automatic loss for minor children when the father naturalizes abroad) — this rule can be decisive in cases involving descendants who were minors at the time of the ancestor’s naturalization.
• Consider filing date and applicable regime: legislative changes such as D.L. 36/2025/Law 74/2025 altered the landscape and may restrict administrative/consular avenues, in addition to raising questions about material retroactivity.
• Seek specialized legal assistance: the matter is evolving, and procedural strategies depend on factual analysis and monitoring decisions by higher courts (Sezioni Unite of the Supreme Court and potential oversight by the Constitutional Court).

In conclusion, the Tribunale di Venezia decision (n. 18581/2026) reinforces, in the specific case, the central role of Law 91/1992 for transmission of citizenship by descent and applies temporal protection to processes filed before 28/03/2025. However, it is essential to highlight that D.L. 36/2025 (Law 74/2025) introduced significant restrictions—including issues of material retroactivity—that require case‑by‑case analysis and ongoing monitoring of higher court decisions.