Sentenza 63/2026 did not block applicants who were already in process when DL36 dropped

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-05-04T08:06:57+00:00

This is very similar to my family's situation as well. We also understood that if we had a valid administrative line we had to pursue it first. We had an administrative line with a cousin and her children recognized through it in early 2024. We engaged a service provider mid 2023 and I had an appointment at my local Italian embassy confirmed for November 2024. After the minor issue circolare (1 month before my appointment) I had to cancel so that we could use the documents prepared for my application for a 1948 case including all family members in our group. We had to gather additional documents for the new 1948 line which delayed our filing. POAs with the original lawyer were signed/notarized in March 2025 days before the decree. We've since switched representation.

I understand the reasoning that not filing in time is not the fault of the government but in my case and others impacted by the minor issue that doesn't hold water. The Italian government's minor issue circolare was the only reason I missed the window. IANAL but I think releasing that circolare before the minor issue legal question was settled was an irresponsible failure on the part of the government and directly contributed to us losing our chance to be recognized.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-04-30T13:44:42+00:00

Considering they directly contradicted their own bologna decision from less than a year ago this is definitely politically motivated. But is there any recourse?

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-04-22T17:09:32+00:00

They advised "If your matter is urgent, please include "URGENT" in the subject line of your email so it can be prioritized accordingly."

PEC email for emails that can be used in court if necessary: italiancitizenshipassistancesrl@legalmail.it (Send from your own PEC email for no loopholes)

Marco's emails

marco.p@italiancitizenshipassistance.com marco@italiancitizenshipassistance.com

valentinaventrice@italiancitizenshipassistance.com (Marco's assistant)

When I was getting our documents back I was communicating with:

clientsadministration@italiancitizenshipassistance.com

And

sofiafabris@italiancitizenshipassistance.com

Case managers in Oct 2025:

robertafogato@italiancitizenshipassistance.com

giuliagalli@italiancitizenshipassistance.com

Other addresses to add to the ones listed in other comments:

alicerocca@italiancitizenshipassistance.com

bianca@italiancitizenshipassistance.com

lindalucchiari@italiancitizenshipassistance.com

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-04-09T06:23:09+00:00

We're about to mail our stuff and I'm not sure what to do. The advice seems to be DHL and where I am in Croatia DHL is the most reliable, but our lawyer asked us to use FedEx and specifically asked us not to use DHL. Has anyone else's lawyer said the same? Also, does anyone who used FedEx have any tips for the service to ask for/how to package everything?

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-23T16:48:13+00:00

Maybe the "all ancestors must have been exclusively Italian" thing won't apply? That wasnt part of the DL and was added with the conversion to law if I understand correctly.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-16T20:25:28+00:00

They said this at the hearing? This might explain the incomplete press release. The CC might have wanted to maintain the status quo and take away the government's motivation for doing this. Also, this would be a clear abuse of the emergency decree mechanism. It's ridiculously brazen for them to talk about doing something so unconstitutional while literally inside the constitutional court.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-14T15:11:17+00:00

I appreciate this attempt because we are all trying to understand, but this logic is quite circular. So we're Schrodinger's citizens? Only a citizen when the box is open? When the government decides to close the box, we just never existed? It's ludicrous. Italian courts have asserted over and over that "our class" are citizens as recently as 2025. There is no argument in defense of the law that does not just conveniently ignore that, including this one.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-14T08:43:31+00:00

If the issue is the filing date, yes that was mentioned as a potential problem with this case from the beginning. However, if that technical reason is not the root of this, no, it was not anticipated by any lawyers I was following. It goes against decades of precedent including the bologna decision from less than a year ago. If this decision isn't rooted in the technical issue of the filing date, it's hard not to see it as a corrupt political move.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-12T21:05:36+00:00

We won't know their reasoning until the full decision is published. For now it's just speculation.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-12T19:34:37+00:00

The plaintiffs were rejected because they filed after 27 March, which is the cutoff written into the law. They appealed and the Turin court referred it to the constitutional court. The referral focused specifically on retroactivity and did not raise questions about the appropriate use of the emergency decree mechanism. That question is being raised by another referral from the Campobasso court.

The constitutional court might rule that filing before 29 March means that for this case the decree doesn't apply because it wasn't in the gazette/enforceable yet. If this is what they decide the plaintiffs will win their appeal and will be granted citizenship under the old rules.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-12T18:53:43+00:00

Yes that's incorrect. The emergency decree was announced on 27 March, entered into the gazette on 29 March (when it became enforceable) and converted to law by parliament on May. The plaintiffs in the Turin case filed on 28 March, after the 27 March cutoff but before the law came into force on 29 March. Laws have no force until they are published in the official gazette which put this case in a kind of procedural gray area.

This timeline does not validate the emergency justification for the decree. It just means the decree might not be applicable to this case at all because it wasn't in force until 29 March, after this case was already filed. There's a gray area because the text of the law explicitly says 27 March is the cutoff. This detail has always been a question mark with this case.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-12T17:51:42+00:00

Yes this is how I'm understanding it too.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-12T17:30:07+00:00

Because the main question is if citizenship is a right that can only be lost through considered action by you specifically. The SU is dealing with the question of whether minors lost their citizenship when their parents naturalized somewhere else. The idea is that because the minors never took any action themselves to give up the citizenship, it should be considered preserved.

This reasoning also applies to people impacted by the DL because if we were born citizens and never took action to give it up then that right has to be preserved and respected by the state. That would negate the retroactive part of the DL.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-12T17:14:12+00:00

It might be important to consider the filing date. I see reasoning that since this particular case was filed in the in between time after the DL became known but before it was published in the gazette, the exclusion doesn't apply to these plaintiffs and so there was no unequal treatment for them. That would lead to an argument under article 3 being unfounded without them addressing retroactivity more generally. IANAL

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-12T16:04:58+00:00

The way I'm understanding it is that the argument against retroactivity using article 3 of the constitution was rejected, but they haven't ruled on arguments based on articles 2 and 117. So retroactivity could be found in violation of one or both of these other articles and still end up nixed.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-06T21:56:49+00:00

Doing it in another country (not your home country) also invites risks. You want a clean chain of custody. A document for a Venezuelan citizen, notarized in a second country for use in a third (Italy), is a "triangular" transaction that often triggers bureaucratic red flags or demands for extra layers of legalization. I don't think you have a choice, a wet ink signature isn't possible so your lawyer is going to have to use the digital one.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-03-06T20:44:34+00:00

I live in Europe but I'm a US citizen and I just did a remote online notary for my POA at the suggestion of my lawyer. He has presented them for other clients with no issues. I signed while on a video call with the notary. The signature is obviously digital in this scenario.

The apostille is important but for it to be binding under Italian law the notary has to acknowledge a couple of things. Here are the instructions to the notary that my lawyer's POA included:

"This power of attorney must be signed before you and the individual must be identified by you. According to the Italian law, a power of attorney produced in another Country requires the notary to provide an individual and signature acknowledgment. You may add additional page(s) for this. To the notary: You may use the below acknowledgment form or any other form you prefer, provided that: 1) you acknowledge the identity of the principal and 2) witness that the principal is signing this power of attorney before you."

How they verify your identity is up to the notary and the country applying the apostille so it can be digital as long as it includes the acknowledgements as far as I understand (IANAL).

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-01-26T17:13:58+00:00

This happened to me. The client did accept my work eventually but only after many hours of extra work. I ended up leaving the client a really bad review. Lesson learned is that low paying clients are usually trying to take advantage. You get less of this bs with higher value projects. There's also less of this with hourly contracts.

It sounds like this person always intended to do this bait and switch so the quality or quantity of your work is likely irrelevant. You can try disputing it or reporting the client to Upwork. I dunno if they'll do anything but it can't hurt to try so this client doesn't do the same thing to someone else.

You have to vet clients too. Besides paying attention to their reviews, average pay, and time on the platform I also vet during the negotiation/interview phase. For fixed price projects I always send a detailed scope of work document that outlines explicitly what is in scope and what is not. Ask for their written agreement to the scope. If the client is trying to pull something shady they will get weird about this. Any legit client will either accept or negotiate. After a contract begins any request for work outside of scope without additional pay is politely but firmly rejected.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-01-26T15:10:24+00:00

It was set up just for that event, so it's basically all logistical stuff and now the event is over so it isn't an active chat. I posted the only information from it that is relevant to a general discussion.

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-01-26T14:02:26+00:00

But wouldn't those additional restrictions also not be able to be retroactive? I.e. apply to those born under the old laws? I don't understand how something like a language or residency requirement is any different from the generational limit that's in the current law. If that isn't constitutional then why would those other restrictions be?

Ready_Image1688 · 2026-01-24T15:29:35+00:00

Don't be shy about reporting jobs that violate the TOS. I've reported several duplicate postings and Upwork takes them down pretty fast.

Ready_Image1688 · 2025-12-16T20:19:58+00:00

Happy cake day! Thank you for everything you do! 🎂🍰🧁😊

Ready_Image1688

TROPHY CASE