por Avv. Michele Vitale - Italyget.com

Quero compartilhar algo importante com esta comunidade, porque ultimamente tenho visto circular informações que podem levar as pessoas a tomar decisões erradas.

Comecemos pelo que realmente aconteceu. No final de março e no final de abril de 2026, o Tribunal de Brescia emitiu 5 decisões — todas idênticas no resultado — referentes a quatro famílias de origem brasileira que haviam apresentado pedidos de reconhecimento da cidadania italiana por descendência (iure sanguinis).

Todos os cinco pedidos foram rejeitados. Por quê? Porque os pedidos haviam sido apresentados em abril e maio de 2025 — após a entrada em vigor do Decreto Tajani (em 28 de março de 2025). O juiz aplicou a nova lei e observou que o Tribunal Constitucional já havia validado essa mesma legislação. Fim da história — por ora.

E os screenshots do Prenot@Ami?

Ao longo dos últimos meses, ouvi o argumento de que qualquer pessoa que tivesse reservado — ou mesmo apenas tentado reservar — um agendamento consular antes de 28 de março de 2025 teria uma espécie de "salvo-conduto" em relação à nova lei.

Essa teoria não encontra qualquer respaldo nas decisões de Brescia. O juiz não considerou se os requerentes haviam tentado agendamentos consulares anteriormente: ele analisou a data de apresentação do pedido e aplicou a lei vigente naquele momento. Um screenshot não é um ato jurídico formal. Um e-mail a um consulado não é um pedido protocolado em juízo.

Para entender melhor esse risco, veja meu artigo detalhado: A Ilusão do Prenot@Ami: Por que capturas de tela não salvarão seu pedido de cidadania.

Atualização Importante de Bolonha

Desde as decisões de Brescia, uma nova decisão do Tribunal de Bolonha veio à tona — e merece atenção específica, precisamente porque aborda diretamente um argumento que havia dado esperança a alguns membros desta comunidade.

Muitos de vocês devem ter lido sobre uma decisão favorável desse mesmo Tribunal de Bolonha que aparentemente havia reconhecido a cidadania em um caso pós-reforma. A nova decisão de Bolonha segue a direção oposta — e o faz de forma explícita.

O juiz apontou dois aspectos particularmente relevantes:

1. Atos Formais apenas: Apenas um pedido judicial formal ou uma solicitação administrativa completa com documentação integral se qualifica pelas regras de transição. Atos informais não são válidos.
2. Via Judicial Disponível: O juiz rejeitou o argumento de que o bloqueio consular isenta alguém de responsabilidade. A lei italiana sempre permitiu que os requerentes recorressem diretamente à Justiça (ricorso contra o silêncio). Se não foi possível obter um agendamento, a via judicial estava disponível.

Saiba mais aqui: A Sentença de Bolonha — Quando as "Boas Notícias" exigem uma segunda leitura.

O que é possível fazer?

Não pretendo criar um pessimismo desnecessário: o panorama jurídico é complexo e as situações variam. Ainda podem existir caminhos a seguir, mas eles são seletivos e exigem uma avaliação caso a caso.

O que não é possível fazer é basear-se em interpretações otimistas que a maioria dos tribunais, ao menos por ora, não está aceitando. Se você ainda está considerando avançar com o processo, faça-o com base em assessoria jurídica real, fundamentada em jurisprudência atual e atualizada.

Para uma análise mais detalhada das tendências atuais, consulte: Cidadania Italiana por Descendência em 2026: O que os Tribunais estão realmente decidindo.

Para a análise completa das 6 decisões, consulte meu artigo no blog: 👉 6 novas decisões dei tribunais de Bolonha e Bréscia: Uma leitura sem falso otimismo

by Avv. Michele Vitale - Italyget.com

I want to share something important with this community, because lately I've been seeing information circulating that could lead people to make the wrong decisions.

Let's start with what actually happened.

Late March and late April 2026, the Tribunal of Brescia issued 5 rulings — all identical in their outcome — on four Brazilian-origin families who had filed petitions for recognition of Italian citizenship by descent (iure sanguinis).

All five petitions were rejected.

Why? Because the petitions had been filed in April - May, 2025 — after the Tajani Decree had already come into force (on March 28, 2025). The judge applied the new law. And noted that the Constitutional Court had already validated that same legislation.

End of story — for now.

What about Prenot@ami screenshots?

Over the past several months, I have heard it argued that anyone who booked — or even merely attempted to book — a consular appointment before March 28, 2025 would have a kind of "safe passage" from the new law.

This theory finds no support in the Brescia rulings. The judge did not consider whether the applicants had previously attempted consular bookings: he looked at the filing date of the petition and applied the law in force at that time.

A screenshot is not a formal legal act. An email to a consulate is not a petition filed in court.

And now, an important update from Bologna.

Since the Brescia rulings, a new decision from the Tribunal of Bologna has come to light — and it deserves specific attention, precisely because it directly addresses an argument that had been giving some in this community reason for hope.

Many of you will have read about a favourable ruling from that same Tribunal of Bologna which had apparently recognised citizenship in a post-reform case where applicants hadn't secured a consular appointment before the deadline.

The new Bologna ruling goes in the opposite direction — and does so explicitly.

The judge made two points that are particularly important:

First, only a formal court petition or a complete administrative application with full documentation qualifies under the transitional rules. Prenot@Ami screenshots, information requests, and any other informal acts do not count — the ruling says this directly.

Second — and this is the part that often gets overlooked — the judge rejected the argument that the consular deadlock excuses anyone. The reasoning is straightforward: Italian law has always allowed applicants to go directly to court, without first going through the consulate. So if you couldn't get a consular appointment, the judicial route was available to you. Not using it is not a valid excuse.

This ruling matters because it comes from the same court that issued the previous ruling which circulated as a positive precedent. Two courts, same city, opposite outcomes — which should tell you something about how uncertain this landscape remains.

So what can be done?

I don't want to create unnecessary pessimism: the legal landscape is complex and situations vary. There can be still paths forward, but they are selective and require a case-by-case assessment.

What cannot be done is to rely on optimistic interpretations that most courts, at least for now, are not accepting.

f you are still considering whether to proceed, do so on the basis of real legal advice, based on current and up-to-date case law, not vague assurances — and certainly not on the basis of a single favourable ruling from a court that has now, in a separate case, issued a decision pointing in the opposite direction.

For a more detailed examination of the 6 rulings, check , as usual , my blog post: 5 New Rulings from the Brescia Court — and Now Bologna Too: A Reading Without False Optimism – ItalyGet

by Avv. Michele Vitale - italyget.com

On April 30, 2026, the Italian Constitutional Court published Sentence No. 63/2026, a highly anticipated decision regarding the constitutional legitimacy of Article 3-bis of Law No. 91 of February 5, 1992. This article was introduced by Decree-Law No. 36 of March 28, 2025, and subsequently converted into Law No. 74 of May 23, 2025.

Constitutional Questions Raised

The Turin Tribunal argued that Article 3-bis functioned as an unconstitutional retroactive revocation. The referral alleged domestic breaches of equality, reasonableness, and legitimate expectations (Articles 2 and 3 of the Italian Constitution). It also raised international law conflicts, specifically regarding EU citizenship rights (Articles 9 TEU and 20 TFEU), the prohibition against arbitrary deprivation of nationality (Article 15 UDHR), and the right to enter one's own country (Article 3, Protocol 4 ECHR). The tribunal's core grievance was the abrupt termination of substantive rights without an adequate transitional period.

The Court's Ruling

The Constitutional Court upheld the law in its entirety. Crucially, the Court classified Article 3-bis as a "retroactive preclusion of acquisition," rejecting the premise that it constituted a revocation. The Justices rooted this distinction in the constitutional necessity of an "effective link" between the citizen and the Republic, drawing on the democratic duties outlined in Articles 1, 4, and 54 of the Constitution.

The legislative balancing of interests was deemed proportional. The Court found no violation of legitimate expectations for those who missed the deadline, holding that their legal position had not sufficiently consolidated compared to individuals with pending applications. EU law arguments were dismissed outright: the Court noted that CJEU proportionality tests apply strictly when an established citizenship status is actively revoked. The remaining human rights claims were declared inadmissible due to defective legal reasoning in the lower court's referral ordinance.

Full Text of the Ruling.

You can read the full translated text of the sentence on my blog post here: https://italyget.com/constitutional-court-sentence-63-2026-jure-sanguinis/

My legal analysis

It's definitely too soon. Give me a few days to recover from the shock 🤦‍♂️

Edit: I posted a short video comment here Constitutional Court Ruling 63/2026: Why there is still hope for Jure Sanguinis.