Unfilled places and students with sufficient marks excluded from Medicine; Council of State: appeal upheld

The Council of State has ruled on the new admissions system for Medicine and Surgery and has identified a critical issue in the mechanism for allocating the remaining places. By Order No. 3347/2026 of the Seventh Section, issued on 28 July 2026 and published on 4 August 2026, the Council of State upheld the application for interim relief lodged by lawyer Marco Tortorella on behalf of the legal network Consulcesi & Partners (C&P), on behalf of a candidate who had been denied admission to the degree course in Medicine and Surgery, thereby overturning the decision of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (Section III), which had previously rejected the application for interim relief.

The Board has ordered the Administration to proceed with the allocation of vacant posts and, subsequently, to verify whether the score actually achieved by the applicant allows for the allocation of an available post at one of the locations indicated in her preferences. If so, it must proceed with enrolment in accordance with the order of the options expressed. At the heart of the decision is the new admission mechanism for Medicine introduced by the reform of the so-called ‘filter semester’, which replaced the traditional entrance exam with a process based on attendance during the first semester and subsequent selection via examinations and the national merit ranking. The Council of State, in the interim phase and pending a more detailed examination of the merits of the case, noted that the current regulations “do not appear to provide for a mechanism that respects the meritocratic principle”, in that they do not allow for the reallocation, in accordance with the order of the merit list, the places left vacant by students who have declined enrolment.

This case highlights a situation deemed particularly problematic: around 200 places remaining unfilled at various universities and, at the same time, students with sufficient marks who were unable to gain admission. The Council of State deemed the criticism regarding the decision not to proceed with admissions in accordance with the order of the ranking list worthy of further examination, describing as ‘illogical’ the provision reserving the remaining places for other categories – such as requests to change campus for serious reasons or enrolment in years beyond the first – rather than prioritising the admission of students who had been successfully placed on the ranking list. The Court also referred to a previous order from the same Section (No. 2636 of 3 July 2026), which had already addressed similar issues concerning the operation of the roll-over process. The order also notes that numerical restrictions on access to university courses are justified by the need to ensure adequate educational standards and quality.

It is precisely within this balance between admissions planning and the right to education that the Council of State’s decision fits: according to the Council, the availability of places requires a review of whether the allocation rules have been correctly applied and whether the ranking order has been respected. The Ministry must now implement the ruling and proceed with the roll-over of places in accordance with the Council of State’s instructions.