The Court of Brescia, in Lombardy, recognized the Italian citizenship of a Brazilian family. through the maternal line in a case filed after the entry into force of Decree-Law 36/2025, which became Law 74/2025. The decision has become final and cannot be appealed.
The trial took place even after the Judgment 63/2026 of the Corte Costituzionalewhich validated the reform of citizenship by descent. Even in this scenario, the magistrate applied the rules prior to the decree, understanding that the applicants had sought administrative recognition. before March 27, 2025.
A maternal line with particularity
The action was conducted by the lawyers. Valerio Piccolo e Andrew Luiz MontoneThe case has the characteristics of a typical 1948 action, but with a detail that required additional strategy. The daughter of the Italian ancestor was married to another descendant of Italians, which opened up the possibility of reconstructing a second line of succession.
This possibility could frame the process within a hypothesis of pseudomaternal ou doppio ceppoFor Montone, a technical reading of the documentation defined the course of the defense.
“Upon careful examination of the family documentation, especially the marriage certificate of the daughter of the Italian ancestor Giuseppe, it was found that her husband was also the son of Italian citizens. In theory, there was a second line of succession potentially eligible for recognition of citizenship. However, this alternative line did not have sufficient documentation for an immediate reconstruction,” he stated in a note to [the publication]. Italianism.
Why prove the attempts at the consulate?
Even with the lawsuit filed by the maternal line, the lawyers decided to prove the administrative attempts made before the consulate. Montone explains the objective.
"In theory, the case could fall under the category of pseudo-maternal or doppio ceppo. In this process, we believe it would be prudent to demonstrate to the Court that, even if this other line of descent were perfectly documented, administrative recognition would still be unfeasible, either because the granddaughter of..." progenitor "It was born before 1948, either because of the well-known reality of Italian consulates," he said.
The lawyer details the risk he intended to avert.
“If this measure had not been adopted, it could be understood that, with an alternative route, the gender discrimination that underlies the traditional 1948 actions would not exist. Anticipating this discussion made it possible to demonstrate that, regardless of the route used, applicants would remain deprived of the effective exercise of a fundamental right due to the concrete impossibility of accessing the administrative procedure.”
Evidence gathered ahead of schedule.
The applicants presented evidence of having sent applications to the Italian Consulate in São Paulo, and of the use of... raccomandate A/R, of scheduling attempts through the system Prenot@mi and the lack of available slots. The group sought to demonstrate the concrete impossibility of accessing the procedure.
The decision to reinforce the evidence was related to the jurisprudence of the time. Some courts, especially that of Genoa, began to understand that the captures of screen Prenot@miThese factors, in isolation, were not sufficient to demonstrate a legitimate interest in taking action.
"The strategy of also using the registered mail with return receipt It arose precisely because of the evolution of jurisprudence regarding standing to sue. Some courts began to require additional elements beyond the printouts of the... Prenot@mi "And we understand that it would be prudent to document the administrative attempt by all possible means," Montone stated.
What did the sentence say?
The judge noted that all applicants documented the administrative protocol before March 27, 2025, by registered mail and through the scheduling portal, which was out of service. He concluded that they acted in time and that, if the consulates had processed the requests normally, the case would have been analyzed according to the previous rules.
The decision also acknowledged the consular delay as a known fact. "The well-known delay by the Consular Authorities, resulting from the extremely high number of applications received, translates into the de facto impossibility of recognizing a fundamental and original right such as citizenship," the judge wrote.
Montone highlights why recognizing this evidence is relevant.
"The relevance of this recognition is even greater because, in judgments involving actions filed after Decree-Law No. 36/2025, the Brescia Court had been rejecting requests even when the plaintiffs presented evidence of administrative attempts made through the..." Prenot@mi and the sending of the raccomandate A/R. In this decision, however, this evidence was expressly valued and considered sufficient to demonstrate that the applicants had sought administrative recognition before the legislative change,” he stated.
The defense of legitimate guarantee
The argument maintained that automatically applying Decree-Law 36/2025 to those who had already pursued administrative channels would violate legal certainty, proportionality, effective judicial protection, and legitimate guarantees. According to the defense, those who pursued their application with the consulate using the available instruments had a qualified expectation of having their request assessed under the then-current regime.
For Valerio Piccolo, the case confirms the importance of individual analysis.
“This decision demonstrates that, even in the current legislative landscape, an individualized analysis of the facts remains essential. The Court carefully examined the documentation produced, valued the evidence presented, and reaffirmed that the recognition of Italian citizenship requires a concrete assessment of the circumstances of each case,” he stated.
"Italian citizenship cannot be reduced to a merely bureaucratic discussion. We are dealing with a fundamental right, and the correct application of the law requires that each family situation be analyzed in its entirety," he added.
A precedent that is not case law.
Despite its relevance, lawyers emphasize that the decision does not represent established case law and that each case requires its own analysis. Montone warns against promises of guaranteed results.
“A favorable decision cannot be transformed into a promise of results or into a basis for creating false expectations. There are no automatic solutions regarding Italian citizenship. There are specific cases. Just as there are favorable decisions, there are also rejections,” he stated.
UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THE CASE
Action 1948: This is a legal process used when citizenship is transmitted through a woman before January 1, 1948, a period during which Italian law did not recognize transmission through the maternal line.
Doppio ceppo / pseudomaterna: A situation in which there is a second line of Italian descent, usually through the spouse, capable of altering the legal basis of the request.
Legitimate guarantee: This principle protects the trust citizens place in the actions of the State, safeguarding those who had already initiated the request under the old rules.
March 27, 2025: The deadline set by Decree-Law 36/2025. Applications filed before that date will follow the previous rules.
Final judgment: final decision, which no further appeals are allowed between the parties.
