A favorable ruling from the Venice Court, dated March 12, 2026 and published this Monday (23), began to generate questions in the Italian-Brazilian community after the initial repercussion.
Presented as an initial victory against the Tajani Decree, the decision is now being cautiously analyzed by experts and legal professionals.
• Cases affected by the decree
• Delays at the town hall and consulate
• Customized legal strategy
The main point of debate is the absence of direct mention of the decree in the reasoning of the judgmentThe case concerns paternal lineage and recognizes the right to Italian citizenship based on the established understanding of... status civitatis.
The omission in the decree raises doubts.
Legal sources consulted by Italianismo indicate that the decision does not explicitly address the restrictions introduced by the Tajani Decree. Among these restrictions is the requirement for administrative verification and registration in consular systems.
This absence opens up two possible interpretations. The first would be that the process was filed before March 27, 2025, which would maintain the analysis under the previous rules. However, Italianismo had access to the protocol number, 21984/2025, which indicates that the action was distributed later and weakens this argument.
The second hypothesis is that the judge directly applied the understanding of the Court of Cassation, without considering the new legislation. In this scenario, the focus would be on recognizing the right as a "perfect right".
Criticism and warnings about expectations.
The repercussions of the decision also generated criticism within the legal community. A message circulating among professionals warns that the ruling does not mention the decree and may be being interpreted too broadly. "It was a copy-and-paste of cases judged before the Tajani Decree," stated one lawyer.
The text of the ruling “makes no reference whatsoever to the Tajani decree” and warns that “there is a risk of creating false expectations”.
According to this interpretation, presenting the decision as an overruling of the decree may be premature, since the issue was not directly addressed by the court.
"Selling this decision as the end of the barriers of the Tajani Decree could create a wave of lawsuits without solid foundation, causing harm to the applicants," says a lawyer.
Rumors of annulment are denied.
With the increased media attention, rumors surfaced that the sentence had been overturned by the judge herself. This information circulated on social media and WhatsApp groups.
Lawyer Cláudio Laganà, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff, denied this version of events. According to him, there was no official communication to that effect. He also stated that he is unaware of any similar practice in the Italian legal system.
Despite this, the lawyer himself acknowledges the possibility of an appeal by the State, especially after the case has been made public.
Defense strategy
The defense argues that the omission of any mention of the decree was intentional. The petition was constructed solely to discuss the nature of the right to citizenship.
"It's a petition made entirely against the reform. There isn't even a single word mentioning the screenshots," he stated.
According to the lawyer, the objective was to reinforce the understanding that the right is original. "Everyone registered with a brand new petition from scratch. Talking about the nature of the right."
He also cited the jurisprudence's position. "The Court of Cassation has already defined what status civitatis is as a perfect right. Imprescriptible, redeemable at any time. And which has a permanent character."
The scenario is still undefined.
The decision comes at a time of legal uncertainty. There is still no clear definition of how the courts will apply the new rules in conjunction with established case law.
The Venice case is seen as a possible indicator, but still without enough force to consolidate understanding. "It's false to say that the case creates jurisprudence," says a lawyer.
New rulings and potential appeals should define the scope of this interpretation in the coming months.
