Professions

Magistrates, changes in access and career evaluation

Psycho-aptitude tests for future magistrates from 2026, specified elements to be given to the magistrate's file kept by the SCC. Reform of out-of-placement only in two years

3 April 2024

3' min read

Amidst controversy that is not destined to cease, the reform of the judiciary arrives at the finishing line, while the reform of out-of-tenure positions is postponed until 2026. The same deadline is set for aptitude tests. And if undoubtedly the news data is represented by the government's decision to accept the parliamentary request for the introduction of psycho-aptitude tests for future magistrates, the system data leads to consider yesterday's measure as the conclusion of a more complex intervention. Upstream there is the delegated law of the past legislature and its first immediately operative application segment, which made it possible, among other things, to vote the current SCCM according to the new rules and to introduce, just to remain strictly topical, even stricter rules on the transfer of functions between judges and prosecutors and vice versa.

In the meantime, the legislative decree that is now to be published in the Official Gazette contains measures regulating new methods of access to the judiciary (among other things, the number of attempts for candidates is to be increased from three to four); it is in this context that aptitude tests have been introduced, according to an implementation framework that places them within the framework of the oral competition tests, and which will see both the Ministry of Justice and the SCCM in the field.

Entrusted to an oral the psycho-aptitude interview. And on the model of police tests, those who have passed the written test before the oral will receive tests identified by the Csm. It is up to the examining commission to formulate the final judgement.

A system already branded as unconstitutional by both the Anm and the togata component of the Higher Council.

Central to the reform remains the new system for assessing the professionalism of the judges. While the four-year cadence remains unchanged, the reform aims to make the checks less bureaucratic. Thus, the physiognomy of the magistrate's file has been drastically revised: kept by the magistrate's committee, it is intended to collect all the potentially relevant elements for a plurality of uses: from the evaluation of professionalism to the attribution of managerial appointments.

Until now, documentation useful for the magistrate's evaluation was collected every four years; now the file will have to be constantly updated (although the inclusion of all measures attributable to the individual magistrate has been ruled out because it would be unmanageable, it will be done on a sample basis with the possibility of 'targeted' additions) and it is specified what must necessarily be contained, expanding the sources of knowledge to every element of interest for the evaluation.

Compared to the past, 'serious anomalies' will weigh more heavily on the outcome of the decisions taken at the subsequent stages and degrees of the proceedings and trial, thus referring to the rejection of requests made by the public prosecutor or the reform of the judge's orders that are due to particularly serious reasons or that are particularly numerous.

In the event of a positive assessment, a more articulated judgement was introduced only on the magistrate's organisational capacity (there are more items to assess a magistrate: independence, impartiality, productivity, industriousness) according to a scale from fair to excellent.

In the event of a non-positive or negative evaluation, the possibility of being released from service has been reduced by providing for financial and career penalties. Currently, after a negative evaluation (which is very rare), it was mandatory for the magistrate to have a positive evaluation in order not to be excluded from the judiciary. With the reform, there may be a non-positive outcome (which is different from negative): in this case, the magistrate remains in the judiciary, is re-evaluated after one year and loses salary increase and career progression.

On the other hand, the entry into force of the decree on non-tenure, which provides for a reduction in the number (very small according to critics) and the period of non-tenure, 7 years, has been postponed until 2026, to avoid depleting crucial offices for constitutional bodies and public administrations at a time of Pnrr stress.