Italy’s magistrates’ union says it is ready to work with the Meloni government on speeding up the justice system. The numbers behind the debate reveal a problem that goes far beyond the institutional reforms that have dominated the political argument.
In an unusual gesture following a period of acute tension between the judiciary and the Meloni government, the National Association of Magistrates offered on Thursday to engage constructively with Rome on the fundamental problem at the heart of Italy’s justice debate: the sheer length of time it takes for cases to reach a conclusion.
“We reiterate our willingness to engage in a substantive discussion on efficiency issues regarding the problems of the justice system in order to resolve citizens’ real problems, first and foremost the excessive length of proceedings,” ANM President Giuseppe Tango told ANSA. His offer came as Prime Minister Meloni reported to parliament on her government’s agenda following last month’s referendum defeat on judicial reform.
The tone was conciliatory, but Tango also set out the structural preconditions for meaningful improvement. “If we want to look ahead and truly envision a justice system that approaches European standards, we must at least ensure that the Italian judiciary reaches personnel levels of at least the European average, which is almost double for judges and triple for prosecutors,” he said. “The functioning of the justice system is a common interest: let’s work on that.”
The numbers behind the crisis
Those personnel figures point to a chronic underfunding problem that no amount of institutional reorganisation will fix on its own. The scale of Italy’s justice backlog, measured against European peers, is stark.
At first instance, criminal law cases in Italy take approximately 399 days to resolve; that is almost three times the EU median of 134 days. Civil and commercial cases take around 381 days at first instance, against an EU median of 107 days. And those are first-instance figures alone: in a system where cases routinely proceed through two rounds of appeal before reaching a definitive verdict, the full timeline from crime to final sentence can stretch to nearly a decade.
Research by Il Sole 24 Ore found that criminal proceedings in Italy last on average around 1,589 days — over four years — while Council of Europe data put the average at approximately three years and nine months. Either figure represents a pace that falls dramatically short of what citizens in most European countries experience.
25% of cases time-barred
The consequences are not merely inconvenient. In 2018, 25% of criminal proceedings in Italy were declared time-barred while still in the appeals phase, meaning that by the time the system got around to delivering a final verdict, the statutory limitation period had expired and the case was dropped. A further 60% of criminal offences do not pass the preliminary investigation phase before the prosecutor runs out of time due to long delays and inefficiency. In practice, this means that a significant share of Italian criminal cases, including serious ones, never result in a conviction, not because of any finding of innocence, but simply because the machinery of justice moves too slowly to stay within the law’s own time limits.
Under Italian law, all crimes, with the exception of those punishable by life imprisonment, must result in a definitive sentence within a period equivalent to the maximum penalty prescribed, and no less than six years for serious crimes. Crucially, it is not enough that proceedings simply begin before this deadline. A final verdict, including all appeals, must be handed down before the limitation period expires. In a system where a full three-tier trial can routinely take eight to ten years, this structural mismatch is a direct source of impunity.
What the defeated reform would have done and what it would not
The reform rejected by Italian voters last month was principally aimed at restructuring the judiciary’s internal governance rather than accelerating proceedings. The proposals included separating the career paths of judges and prosecutors so that they could no longer move between the two roles; creating a high court to discipline members of the judiciary; splitting the CSM into two separate chambers; and changing the way CSM justices were elected, introducing a draw process to reduce factional influence.
The government argued the reform was necessary to end what it described as a culture of cosiness between judges and prosecutors. Also to make magistrates accountable for their errors, and to reduce the influence of the left-leaning factions within the judiciary that Meloni maintains have systematically targeted centre-right politicians.
Reforms didn’t address backlogs
Critics, including the ANM and the opposition, maintained that none of this would make Italy’s courts faster. On that specific point, the critics had a fair argument. None of the reform’s central provisions directly addressed court backlogs, staffing levels, the digitisation of proceedings, or any of the other operational changes that experts consistently identify as the path to genuine efficiency gains.
Meloni, speaking to the Senate on Thursday, showed no sign of abandoning the substance of her reforming agenda. “It seems to me that it is clear to everyone that justice reform remains a necessity,” she said. “Even several members of the No camp in the referendum are now candidly saying that a change of pace is needed, that the drift towards factionalism is a problem, that the excessive power of a section of the judiciary that wants to replace the government and Parliament is a real risk.”
She also renewed her long-running complaint about judges blocking government migration measures, accusing sections of the judiciary of deliberately obstructing policy rather than simply applying the law. Tango responded by stating that judges merely apply Italian and international laws, a formulation that neatly sidesteps the political charge while refusing to accept the premise.
A system in need of more than top-level reorganisation
Whether the post-referendum moment produces genuine cross-party cooperation on justice reform, or merely a fresh round of political positioning, the underlying problem will remain. Italy has too few judges, too few prosecutors, too many pending cases, and a procedural framework that allows delay. The 14 million citizens who have an active civil case pending in the Italian courts are not primarily concerned with the composition of the CSM or the career paths of magistrates. They want their cases heard and resolved within a timeframe that resembles normal justice.
Tango’s offer to engage on efficiency issues is, at minimum, a more productive starting point than the confrontational dynamic that has dominated the relationship between the government and the magistracy in recent months. Whether Meloni’s government has either the time or the appetite to convert that opening into legislation is another question entirely.
Sources: ANSA; Il Sole 24 Ore; EU Justice Scoreboard / Council of Europe CEPEJ 2024; Oliver & Partners; Italian Code of Criminal Procedure
