In response to a request from the president of the Court of Appeal of Venice, Rita RigoniItalianismo has removed the article published on May 16, 2026, which dealt with the adjudication of Italian citizenship cases in the Veneto region.
In a joint statement sent to the portal, the president of the Court of Appeal of Venice and the president of the Court of Venice, Andrea FidanziaThey clarified that no new guidelines or guidelines have been issued to judges on how to decide on citizenship actions.
The previous text mentioned supposed specific guidelines for applications submitted after March 28, 2025, shortly after the Tajani decree. The Venice Judiciary leadership reported that no meeting with this objective was held and requested an update to the content.
Italianismo values factual accuracy and is committed to transparency with its readers.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed: citizenship is born with the person.
- New legal front opened
- Processes can still be filed.
- Individual assessment before any decision.
In its response to the Venice Court, where the suppression of the article was proven, the website invited both signatory presidents to give an interview.
The purpose of this invitation is to discuss the existing interpretative conflict between Constitutional Court decision 63/2026 and the recent decision issued by the Court of Cassation on May 12th.
The interview aims to clarify the path the Venice Court will take in light of these legal positions. Italianismo awaits a response from the authorities.
* Article updated on 18/05/2026
Flavia HM Di Pilla
May 16 from 2026 at 11: 49
What is the source of this information? Where did you see this type of instruction? Do you know that no court can give instructions to judges on how to decide? I would like to know the basis of this information. And who signed the article? I would like to have their contact information. Thank you very much.
Jicxjo
May 18 from 2026 at 15: 36
There is??!!
This news is unfounded.
Chrystina Mara
June 17 from 2026 at 13: 52
Now that the article has been corrected, I think its title should be too, because as it stands, it's incorrect.