The government is introducing a stopgap measure to curb future pay rises for magistrates

Giorgia Meloni has not yet signed the Prime Ministerial Decree to pay around one billion in arrears to magistrates, but she is trying to curb the rush for future pay rises. In Article 67 of the draft Budget Bill, the government has, in fact, included a provision aimed at changing the method for calculating contractual pay rises for magistrates – or rather, at reinstating the method in force prior to the groundbreaking rulings by the Council of State. Judges’ salary adjustments are, in fact, determined on a three-year basis, by calculating the per capita average of the increases received by other categories of public sector employees over the previous three-year period. For decades, Istat has carried out this calculation in the simplest and most accurate way possible: using a weighted average, that is, by assigning each sector a weighting corresponding to its numerical size.

However, in 2025, overturning the established interpretation, the Council of State upheld the appeal lodged by fellow magistrates and the ANM, ruling that the method used up to that point had been incorrect: according to the new interpretation, instead of the weighted average, the simple average must be used, assigning the same weight to each category regardless of the number of staff, with the explicit reasoning that smaller sectors receive higher pay rises. As a result, under the previous method magistrates received increases of 4.84 per cent for the three-year period 2021–23 and 6.22 per cent for 2024–26; under the new simple average method, however, the increases rose to 6.69 per cent and 12.32 per cent respectively.

Now that all the judgements have become final, including those of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court relating to the Prime Ministerial Decree on the second three-year period in question, according to calculations by the State General Accounting Office, between arrears and salary adjustments under the new regime, the state must pay out 979 million euros to magistrates.

However, the cost does not end there, for two reasons. The first is that the same method used for magistrates also applies to other categories of non-contractual staff, such as university professors, senior officers in the police and the armed forces, and staff in the prefectural and diplomatic services. Some of these categories, such as university professors and military officers, have already lodged an appeal similar to that of the magistrates: they too want the simple average rather than the weighted average, and it is highly likely that the Regional Administrative Court will follow the path set out by the Council of State’s rulings. Although the group concerned is much larger than that of the magistrates, the overall cost to the state is expected to be lower, because for these categories salary adjustments are made on an annual rather than a triennial basis, and the appeal relates only to the Prime Ministerial Decree of 2026. It is therefore likely that the government will have to pay one year’s back pay, with a limited additional margin, rather than one billion as in the case of the magistrates.

The other issue – the one addressed by the Budget Act – is that the new method introduced by the Council of State’s rulings entails structurally higher salary adjustments, even for the future.

And it is precisely on this point that the Budget Law intervenes, given that the government cannot do anything about the past or about judgements that are now final. Article 67 (Provisions concerning the review of salary adjustment mechanisms for non-contractual staff), in fact, explicitly stipulates that the average which ISTAT must calculate to determine salary increases for magistrates (and other non-contractual categories) is that ‘weighted by the numerical size’ of the other categories of civil servants. The article also specifies that the basis for calculating the index must be ‘net of arrears’: whilst this might seem a superfluous clarification from a logical standpoint, the government evidently wishes to avoid any room for interpretation by the administrative courts, thereby preventing any unpleasant surprises. The provision is being included in the Budget Bill to be approved before the end of the year, so that it may come into force in time for the adjustment of magistrates’ salaries for the three-year period 2027–29.

On 21 October, after Giorgia Meloni had announced – amidst a row with the ANM – that she had no intention of signing the Prime Ministerial Decree (DPCM) ordering the payment of one billion euros in arrears, at such a difficult economic time for the country, we wrote in Il Foglio that this decision would have no consequences. “If the Prime Minister does not implement the court rulings, the Council of State will appoint an ad acta commissioner to do so in the government’s place. The result will be the same as if Meloni had signed the DPCM: the government will pay what is due, the magistrates will receive what is owed to them, and taxpayers will foot the bill.” We suggested, instead, that action should be taken with a view to the future. “Politics cannot change court rulings, but it can amend the rules: restoring the method used to date for calculating magistrates’ salaries – based on a weighted average – through a specific legislative amendment or a law of authentic interpretation.”

Evidently, at Palazzo Chigi and the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF), they were already considering such a measure, which (re)establishes a principle of statistical common sense that had been overturned by the Council of State. The government has thus put a stopgap in place to stem future payments. It now remains to be seen how long it will take to pay the 979 million in arrears to the magistrates (up to 100,000 euros each), which has already been set aside in the ‘Judgements Fund’ as part of this budget session.