Judicial administrators, limit of three appointments for management
Vademecum of the Court of Milan with instructions for judges and professionals. The ceiling of three appointments does not include the management of assets other than companies
Key points
The limit of three assignments for judicial administrators is fully in force and includes only business assignments and not also those of management of assets different from companies (e.g. management of real estate and registered movables and company shares). This is clarified by the vademecum of the Gip section of the Court of Milan, which provides a long sequence of indications for professionals called upon to manage seized assets.
The criteria to be met
Law 161 of 2017 introduced the principle of the rotation of assignments among judicial administrators to avoid an excessive number of assignments in charge of the same professional. The criteria set out are: the nature and extent of the assets being seized; characteristics of the business activity to be continued; specific skills related to management.
The absence of the decree
A subsequent ministerial decree, which has never been adopted, will have to identify the criteria for the appointment of judicial administrators and coadjutors, taking into account the number of current company appointments in any case "not exceeding three", with the exclusion of appointments already in progress as coadjutor; the monocratic or collegial nature of the appointment; the type and value of the assets to be administered with reference also to the number of workers; the direct or indirect nature of the management; the location of the assets on the territory and previous specific professional experience.
The same decree should have established the criteria for identifying the tasks for which the particular complexity of the administration or the exceptional value of the assets to be administered determine the prohibition of cumulation.
Limit in force
The absence of the decree has prompted some interpreters to argue that, in this transitional phase, the three-mandate limit would not even be operative; a position from which the Court of Milan distances itself by emphasising that the principle of rotation of offices is imposed by law. Moreover, as regards the scope of application of the limit of accumulation, the vademecum observes that this must relate only to corporate offices: a number of elements militate in this sense, including the reference in the law to the figure of the judicial administrator of seized 'companies' and the underlying spirit of the reform that is to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the management of assets seized and confiscated from crime and, at the same time, enhance the specialisation and delicate role played by judicial administrators.
