On the subject of magistrates’ salaries, the president of the ANM first twists the figures and then defies logic

On Saturday, Il Foglio revealed that the ANM had released false data regarding the issue of magistrates’ unpaid salaries. The following day, during the Central Executive Committee meeting, the association’s leadership was forced to acknowledge the accuracy of this newspaper’s account, without, however, admitting to having circulated bogus figures. To reconcile both statements, the magistrates’ president, Giuseppe Tango, had to perform a remarkable logical contortion. “Our estimates are from a year ago,” he stated, “which means that the judgements of which we were aware could only have been those relating to the first DPCM of 2021.” Therefore, Tango argues, the ANM could not take into account “a subsequent judgement (relating to the 2024 Prime Ministerial Decree, ed.) for which the ruling has not yet become final and may still be subject to appeal”.

At this point, a brief technical introduction to a complex matter is required. The magistrates have brought an administrative appeal against the calculation method historically used by the government and Istat to determine pay rises for this category for the three-year periods 2021–23 and 2024–26. In 2025, the Council of State, in two identical judgements concerning the first Prime Ministerial Decree (DPCM), ruled that the criterion of the weighted average of public sector contracts previously used by Istat (which had always been accepted) was unlawful: in its place, the simple average must be used, as this guarantees higher pay rises. On the basis of these final judgements, on 11 March 2026 the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR) also annulled the second Prime Ministerial Decree (DPCM) in three separate judgements. Consequently, following these rulings – one of which was final and the other a foregone conclusion as it concerned the same dispute – the government, in the Budget Policy Document (DPB), allocated 979 million euros to the ‘Judgements Fund’ to cover the payments arising from the rulings in favour of the magistrates.

When Il Sole 24 Ore broke the story, referring to a cost of “up to 100,000 euros” per magistrate, the ANM reacted with indignation, speaking of “sensationalist reports and falsehoods designed to attack magistrates”. “It’s a complete lie,” said Tango at the time, referring to the figures from the Dpb, and contrasting them with the ANM’s significantly lower estimates: between 5,000 and 15,000 euros per magistrate depending on seniority: “I’m ready to show my payslip,” he said. It is now clear that this figure is bogus, because – as revealed by Il Foglio – it refers only to the first DPCM, which amounts to 241 million euros. Meanwhile, the cost of the second DPCM is three times that: 738 million, equal to 75 per cent of the total 979 million. The ANM thus dismissed as false figures that it knew to be true, citing estimates that it knew to be outdated and incomplete. 

The account given by President Tango – who, incidentally, is head of the ANM’s trade union office that produced the estimates – does not hold water. It is no good saying now that ‘our estimates are from a year ago’, and therefore relate only to the first Prime Ministerial Decree. This is because the ANM has never before stated that its estimates were outdated and incomplete: on the contrary, it has used them to discredit those who provided up-to-date and accurate data. Tango’s claim that “the data comes from tables that had not been made public and were in the restricted area” of the website is also unfounded. Firstly, because it was the ANM itself that circulated those ‘restricted’ tables (no hacker stole them), but above all because the statements made in the media by the ANM’s leadership regarding the mere 5,000 euros in arrears were based precisely on those estimates. This means they were not restricted! Otherwise, it would be as if a public prosecutor were to claim that an entry in the register of suspects is a confidential matter whilst simultaneously revealing the names of the suspects.

The ANM is entitled not to assess the effects of a judgement until it becomes final (incidentally, the judgement on the second DPCM has also become final). However, it cannot describe the government’s decision not to lodge an appeal with a predictable outcome and to include the relevant sums in the budget as a media ‘campaign’ to delegitimise the judiciary. This is simply standard good administrative practice and not a malicious strategy to discredit magistrates by showering them with money.

Tango’s argument that the ANM could not have estimated the effects of the second Prime Ministerial Decree is also contradictory, as it was unaware of the new salary increase percentage estimated by ISTAT (+12.32 per cent for the three-year period 2024–26). This is because the ANM’s tables relating to the first DPCM were drawn up in July 2025, before ISTAT had announced the official figure for the new adjustment (6.22 per cent): for the first DPCM, the ANM did not have the relevant figure and therefore estimated it; now, regarding the other DPCM, it claims that it cannot do what it did previously.

Tango’s logic is somewhat scattered. One would expect magistrates to demonstrate logical rigour and greater respect for the truth. And, if possible, for the press as well.