Tribunale di Venezia recognizes citizenship by jure sanguinis

Category: citizenship

The Tribunale di Venezia has recognized the right to Italian citizenship by descent (ius sanguinis) in a favorable ruling published on 20/10/2026, in case no. 19372/2026, filed in 2024 and lasting about 34 months.

Decision summary

Ruling no. 19372/2026, issued by the Tribunale di Venezia and published on 20/10/2026, upheld the request for recognition of Italian citizenship by descent (ius sanguinis) made by applicants who based their claim on being the child of a grandfather born in Italy who emigrated without renouncing Italian citizenship. The case was filed in 2024 and lasted approximately 34 months. According to the decision text published by Diritto Pratico, the defendant administration did not appear in the proceedings and was declared contumacious, which led to the judicial recognition of the petition (source: Diritto Pratico — https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenze.html?c=https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenza/tribunale/venezia/2026/19372.html#5bf35).

The Court applied Law No. 91/1992 to recognize the right, and stated that the 2025 reform (D.L. 36/2025, converted to L. 74/2025, known as Decreto Tajani) does not apply to the case because the process was initiated before the reform’s effective date — 28/03/2025. The judgment explains the application of the regime prior to the case under the conversion decree.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: reading the judgment should be done with attention to the national legislative context in force since 2025. Below are clarifications on the limits and effects of the Decreto Tajani that affect many practical situations.

Key legal grounds (as stated in the judgment)

• Jurisdiction: the Tribunale di Venezia declared itself competent ratione loci by applying territorial criteria referenced in the case, with reference to forum rules. The concrete application of these criteria depends on facts and exceptions; this is not an absolute rule applicable regardless of procedural circumstances.
• Applicable norm: the Court applied Law No. 91/1992 — the baseline rule of jus sanguinis — according to which a child’s filiation to an Italian citizen father or mother constitutes the basis for citizenship status.
• Burden of proof: the primary evidentiary burden to demonstrate the acquiring fact (birth and filiation along the transmission line) rests with the applicants. If the administration raises interrupting facts (for example, naturalization of the ancestor before the descendant’s birth), it will be for the administration to prove such facts. In practice, the distribution of the burden and the evidentiary value of administrative documents can vary by case.
• Character of the status: the Court reaffirmed, for this case, that recognition of citizenship status derives from proof of the filiation provided by Law 91/1992; the judgment addresses the temporal nature of the petition in light of the applicable process rules.

"Proof of blood ties and the factual circumstances relating to the ancestor are intended to demonstrate the right to recognition provided by Law 91/1992." (Paraphrase of the grounds in the judgment, as published by Diritto Pratico.)

Essential legislative context (updated and mandatory)

Starting from D.L. 36/2025 (converted to L. 74/2025) — the so-called Decreto Tajani — the legal framework for requests for citizenship by descent has changed significantly. Key points readers should note:

• Administrative/consular and municipal paths restricted: under the decree, in many cases it is no longer possible to obtain administrative recognition (at the comune) for foreign residents seeking jus sanguinis autonomously, and the consular path has been restricted to children and grandchildren (the decree’s provisions imply that great-grandchildren and later generations often lack direct consular access). In practice, after the decree, judicial action became the relevant route for many applicants of more distant generations.

• MATERIAL retroactivity: Decreto Tajani imposes restrictions affecting the substantive right of people born outside Italy who are not children or grandchildren of Italians, with retroactive effects to the person’s birth (the law states that certain people “were never Italian”). This is a change to substantive law and has generated significant legal questions — interpretation and compatibility with constitutional principles are debated and subject to future higher-court rulings.

• Procedural protection: the decree includes provisions that protect cases filed before the effective date (28/03/2025). Thus, cases filed before that date may remain subject to the prior regime. However, this procedural protection does not erase the issue of material retroactivity of the decree for those whose material rights are directly affected by its provisions — legal tensions exist between procedural protection and the material effects proclaimed by the decree.

• Binding force of the Sezioni Unite: decisions of the Sezioni Unite of the Court of Cassation have binding effect on other Italian judges. Questions of material retroactivity and constitutional compatibility of the decree have been and may be debated in higher courts.

• Automatic loss for minors (Art. 12 §2 Law 555/1912): there is a specific provision addressing the automatic loss of citizenship for minor children when the father naturalizes abroad. This rule is materially relevant in many cases involving minors and must be considered carefully — it cannot be omitted when evaluating temporal effects on minor children.

Impact of the reform (DL 36/2025, L. 74/2025) and interpretation of the judgment

The Court expressly stated that the Decreto Tajani does not apply to the case because it was filed before the reform’s effective date (28/03/2025). The judgment applies, to this case, the prior regime (Law 91/1992).

Practical note:

• The decision shows that, in the specific scenario of a case filed before 28/03/2025, the Court considered the prior regime applicable. However, this does not mean the 2025 reform has no material effects for other applicants — particularly for those whose material right was retroactively extinguished by the decree (a controversial issue subject to review by higher courts).
• In general: cases filed before the reform have procedural protection; however, the existence of a provision asserting material retroactivity to birth (and excluding from the right people who are not children or grandchildren) creates a distinct issue that may be examined by higher courts (Sezioni Unite and/or Constitutional Court) and requires case-by-case assessment.

Source: decision no. 19372/2026, text published by Diritto Pratico (https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenze.html?c=https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenza/tribunale/venezia/2026/19372.html#5bf35).

Practical implications for applicants in Brazil (updated)

• Administrative/Consular/Comune routes: since the Decreto Tajani took effect, the consular route has been formally restricted to children and grandchildren; administrative recognition at the comune has become practically impossible in most cases for applicants from later generations. Consequently, many applicants who previously sought administrative or consular recognition now rely on judicial action.
• Cases filed before 28/03/2025: these cases have procedural protection under the decree’s text; the Tribunale di Venezia decision is an example of applying this protection to a real case. However, this protection does not automatically eliminate issues related to the decree’s material retroactivity for people directly affected by its provisions.
• Minors: there is a specific rule (Art. 12 §2 of Law 555/1912) on the automatic loss of citizenship for minor children when the father naturalizes abroad. This rule is materially relevant and must be carefully analyzed in cases involving minors — simply noting that the case was filed before the decree’s effective date does not automatically resolve the material consequences of automatic loss in specific cases.
• Burden of proof: generally, the applicant must prove filiation and transmission links; the administration asserting interrupting facts (such as naturalization of the ancestor before the descendant’s birth) must produce proof of those acts. In practice, the allocation of burden and the evidentiary value of documents can vary by case and judicial decision.
• Jurisdiction: when administrative denial occurs, it is possible to file a judicial action in the appropriate court — for example, the birth place of the Italian ancestor was accepted as the forum in the Tribunale di Venezia case. However, jurisdiction rules may vary depending on the case facts and applicable procedural norms.

What to do in practice (checklist for Brazilians interested)

• Gather complete birth, marriage, and death certificates (where relevant) for all generations in the transmission line.
• Seek evidence that the Italian ancestor did not renounce citizenship: records of naturalization in the destination country, negative naturalization certificates, or absence of renunciation acts.
• Evaluate minor cases with special attention to the automatic loss rule (Art. 12 §2 Law 555/1912) and discuss protective procedural and material measures with a lawyer.
• If there is an administrative denial, consider judicial action in the competent forum; for cases filed before 28/03/2025 there is procedural protection under the decree, which may be relevant to strategy, but the retroactivity issue requires specific analysis.
• Consult a lawyer specialized and up-to-date on Sezioni Unite jurisprudence and any constitutional decisions that could affect retroactivity and material rights.

For general guidance on documents and procedures, see Cidadania Italiana.

Conclusion

The Tribunale di Venezia’s decision no. 19372/2026 recognized the right to Italian citizenship by descent based on Law 91/1992, applying this regime to a case filed in 2024 and confirming that, for this case, the 2025 reform (D.L. 36/2025, L. 74/2025) did not apply due to procedural protections. However, readers should note that Decreto Tajani substantively altered the legal framework (restricting consular and administrative routes for later generations, plus the issue of material retroactivity) — points that require careful attention and specialized legal analysis on a case-by-case basis.

Source: decision no. 19372/2026 (Diritto Pratico) — https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenze.html?c=https://apps.dirittopratico.it/sentenza/tribunale/venezia/2026/19372.html#5bf35