Magistrate assessment reform: the performance file is now law

1. The fact

   According to reports by Il Sole 24 Ore and major news agencies like ANSA, the reform of magistrate assessment has reached full operational status with the issuance of Legislative Decree 44/2024. The matter stems from the need to overcome the previous professional assessment system, often considered too automatic and lacking real selective value. The reform process went through a complex institutional path: from delegating law 71/2022 (the so-called Cartabia Reform) to the critical opinion of the High Council of the Judiciary, which expressed concerns about the risk of a corporate drift in the justice system. Currently, the regulations have entered into force and the Ministry of Justice, led by Carlo Nordio, has begun preparing the digital infrastructure necessary for constant monitoring of judicial activity, marking a historic turning point in the efficiency control of Italian courts.

2. 

   The rules at play

   The core of the reform lies in Legislative Decree 44/2024, which radically modifies Legislative Decree 160/2006.

   1. Article 2 introduces the so-called magistrate assessment file, a tool that annually collects statistical data on rulings issued and their sustainability in subsequent stages, aiming to detect any serious anomalies.
   2. Article 3 redefines professionalism parameters, formally inserting organizational capacity as an independent criterion; this means the magistrate is no longer evaluated solely on the quality of judgments, but also on efficiency in managing the caseload, timelines, and hearings.
   3. The consequences of a non-positive or negative assessment include the freezing of salary increments and, in cases of repeated inefficiency, potential dismissal from service for professional incapacity.

3. What the case law says

   Since the rule was recently introduced, case law is consolidating around constitutional principles of autonomy. The courts of legitimacy have clarified that the review of professional assessments must always respect the principle of interpretive freedom, preventing fear of sanctions from pushing judges toward prudential conformity. The Constitutional Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that the independence of magistrates is an inalienable pillar, though it does not exempt them from liability for inexcusable negligence or very serious lack of industriousness. Administrative courts, for their part, have specified that the High Council of the Judiciary enjoys broad technical discretion in assessments, subject to challenge only in cases of manifest unreasonableness or misrepresentation of facts, confirming that the new performance file must be managed with extreme methodological rigor to prevent arbitrary rulings.

5. Analysis drafted and verified with edit.legal

   To verify the provisions cited in this article, we used edit.legal. Test our legal AI on official sources and apply it to your own matters.

   Try edit.legal AI

8. What it teaches professionals

   1. Lawyers must learn to draft concise and focused pleadings, as a judge pressured by assessment deadlines will be less inclined to tolerate unnecessary prolixity.
   2. It is essential to monitor the organizational practices of the relevant judicial office, as the reform prompts court leaders to enforce stricter time-management protocols.
   3. Understanding the performance file enables defense counsel to better assess the risk of a rushed judgment, allowing them to adopt strategies that help the court decide swiftly without compromising legal soundness.

References: D.Lgs. 44/2024D.Lgs. 160/2006Legge 71/2022

Editorial oversight: Avv. Federico Papa·ICAMUpdated 17 September 2026Content drafted with AI support and subject to editorial source checks. Despite these controls, inaccuracies may remain: reports and rectification requests are welcome. Report a correction