JUDGMENT NO. 145

YEAR 2025

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

is composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has pronounced the following

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy review of Article 27-bis, paragraph 2, of the Decree of the President of the Republic of April 24, 1982, no. 335 (Regulations concerning the personnel of the State Police performing police functions), promoted by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, First Section Four, in the proceedings between F.G. G. and the Ministry of the Interior, by order of January 22, 2025, registered under no. 28 of the ordinary register of judgments of 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 8, special first series, of 2025.

Having examined the statement of appearance of F.G. G. and the intervention statement of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard in the public hearing of July 9, 2025, the Reporting Judge Roberto Nicola Cassinelli;

having heard counsel Marcello Giuseppe Feola for F.G. G. and State Attorney Emma Damiani for the President of the Council of Ministers;

deliberated in the council chamber of July 9, 2025.

Facts Considered

1.– With the order of January 22, 2025 (registered under no. 28 of the ordinary register of judgments 2025), the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, First Section Four, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 27-bis, paragraph 2, of Decree of the President of the Republic of April 24, 1982, no. 335 (Regulations concerning the personnel of the State Police performing police functions), in reference to Articles 3, 51, and 97 of the Constitution.

The contested provision, contained in the regulation specifying the requirements for participation in the public competition for appointment as Deputy Inspector, stipulates that participation in the said competition is also open, with a reservation of one-sixth of the available positions, to members of the State Police roles with at least three years of effective service as of the date of the notice announcing the competition, possessing the prescribed requirements with the exception of the age limit," set at twenty-eight years by paragraph 1, letter b).

1.1.– The main proceedings were initiated by F.G. G. and D. M., State Police agents over twenty-eight years of age, but with less than three years of service seniority, who challenged the public competition notice for Deputy Inspector of the State Police for the year 2022, insofar as it provided for the raising of the maximum age limit up to thirty-three years for participation in the competition only for employees of the civil administration of the interior, without prescribing any seniority requirement, and Article 2, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Decree of the Ministry of the Interior of July 13, 2018, no. 103 (Regulation containing rules for identifying age limits for participation in public competitions for access to roles and careers of State Police personnel), which contains an identical provision.

The TAR Lazio, having admitted the applicants to the selection procedure with reservation, and having noted the successful completion of the selection by F.G. G. (while D. M. had withdrawn the appeal), found that the challenged administrative acts reproduced the content of the provision subject to challenge, which is of primary legal nature.

1.2.– On this premise, and concerning the relevance of the questions, the referring judge observed that the provision must be necessarily applied in the present case, as the appellant successfully passed all the competition tests and, therefore, the only factor preventing his inclusion in the rankings is the fact that he has not reached the minimum seniority threshold established by the contested provision, which, given its unequivocal wording, cannot be subject to any interpretation other than the literal one.

1.3.– Regarding the non-manifest groundlessness, the TAR Lazio primarily assumes that the provision conflicts with the principle of public competition set forth in Articles 3, 51, first paragraph, and 97, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution.

The provision of a minimum seniority threshold for accessing the competition, in fact, while aiming to consolidate the prior work experience accrued by the applicant within the same recruiting administration, would not be functional to specific needs of the administration itself, thus exceeding the limit set by the principles of reasonableness and good governance of the public administration; this would consequently result in an unjustifiable restriction of the right of every citizen to access public offices without any distinction other than their aptitude and capacity.

1.4.– A second aspect of unreasonableness of the required seniority stems from the fact that it contradicts the objective of recruiting younger personnel for the performance of operational functions, such as those assigned to State Police Inspectors.

In fact, Article 26, paragraph 1, of D.P.R. no. 335 of 1982 attributes to personnel in this role "the qualifications of public security agent and judicial police officer," thereby defining a professional profile that inevitably implies physical fitness and vigor; this, moreover, justifies the general introduction of a maximum age limit.

The established minimum seniority threshold would therefore constitute an element inconsistent with the recruitment regulations for the Police Forces, consequently causing prejudice to the good governance of the administration; hence, a further contention of violation of Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution.

1.5.– Thirdly, a disparity of treatment in regulating access to the competition reserved for personnel from the civil roles of the Ministry of the Interior would derive from the contested provision, for which no minimum seniority requirement is provided, and who would therefore be tendentially favored, as they can enter the role at a younger age and, consequently, with the availability of "a longer time horizon for remaining" in the role.

Likewise, there is a different treatment also in the regulation of participation in the competition for the rank of Commissioner, allowed to members of the State Police without any seniority requirement.

Article 3 of the Constitution would therefore be violated also in relation to the principle of equality.

1.6.– Finally, the referring judge raises a challenge of a similar nature, asserting that the contested provision constitutes "a partial 'duplication' of the requirement for participation in 'internal' competitions for appointment as Deputy Inspector," provided for by Article 27, paragraph 1, letter b), of D.P.R. no. 335 of 1982, which establishes that a portion of the available positions is filled through a competition based on qualifications and exams "reserved for personnel of the State Police performing police functions in possession [...] of a service seniority of not less than five years."

In the internal competition, the referring judge observes, the provision of the seniority requirement is justified by the need to identify "a 'counterweight' to the competitive advantage constituted by the possibility of having a preferential channel for access to the higher rank," as well as to carry out "a first screening of candidates," whereas such needs are not present in the public competition.

From this perspective, therefore, the contested provision leads to an unreasonable equating of different situations.

2.– The President of the Council of Ministers intervened, represented and defended by the Attorney General's Office, primarily raising an objection regarding the inadmissibility of the questions due to lack of relevance.

The intervening party emphasized, in particular, that the service seniority required by the contested provision does not constitute a requirement for participation in the competition, but rather a prerequisite for access to a reserved quota established in favor of members of the State Police role, in derogation of the age requirement generally established for access to the competition; in this regard, it observed that the appellant never requested access to the reserved quota of positions, which should have led the TAR Lazio to decide the case independently of the doubt regarding constitutionality.

2.1.– In the alternative, the Attorney General requested that the questions be declared unfounded, based on the fundamental premise that the minimum seniority threshold affects the faculty, granted to State Police personnel, to access the reserved quota of positions and not the possibility for every citizen to participate in the competition, thereby excluding any possible conflict with Articles 51 and 97 of the Constitution.

As for the disparities of treatment outlined by the referring judge, they appear to refer to non-homogeneous situations; nor do violations of the principle of substantial equality exist, the assertion of which is likewise the result of the erroneous consideration of seniority as a requirement for participation in the competition and not as a condition for derogation from the age prerequisite.

3.– F.G. G., appellant in the main proceedings, appeared and requested the acceptance of the question, reiterating, in particular, that the minimum seniority requirement lacks systematic logic and is contrary to the principles of equality and reasonableness.

The same considerations were then reiterated by the private party in the brief submitted close to the hearing.

Considered in Law

1.– The TAR Lazio, First Section Four, with the order indicated in the heading (reg. ord. no. 28 of 2025), questions the constitutional legitimacy of Article 27-bis, paragraph 2, of D.P.R. no. 335 of 1982, for conflict with Articles 3, 51, and 97 of the Constitution.

The contested provision, contained in the regulation governing access to the public competition for appointment as Deputy Inspector of the State Police – prescribing the relevant requirements, including a maximum age of twenty-eight years – provides that participation in the competition is also open, with a reservation of one-sixth of the available positions, to members of the State Police roles with at least three years of effective service as of the date of the notice announcing the competition, possessing the prescribed requirements with the exception of the age limit," set at twenty-eight years by paragraph 1, letter b).

1.1.– According to the referring judge, this minimum seniority threshold, lacking a functional link with the specific needs of the administration concerned, would lead to an unreasonable restriction of access to the public competition for Deputy Inspector, in violation of Articles 3, 51, first paragraph, and 97, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution.

Furthermore, it would be inconsistent with the objective of recruiting younger personnel for the exercise of operational functions, such as those assigned to State Police Inspectors, resulting in a further violation of the principles of reasonableness and good governance under Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the minimum seniority requirement would give rise to a disparity of treatment compared to the regulation of access to the same competition for personnel from the civil roles of the Ministry of the Interior, for whom it is not required, and to the regulation of the competition for the rank of Commissioner, which State Police members can access without minimum seniority limits.

Finally, Article 3 of the Constitution would also be violated under the profile of the principle of substantial equality, since the provision of the seniority requirement would constitute a duplication, in part, of the regulation concerning internal competitions for appointment as Deputy Police Inspector, in which, however, the minimum threshold meets the need to restrict the pool of candidates, which is not present in the public competition.

2.– Preliminarily, the objection of inadmissibility of the questions raised by the Attorney General's Office must be examined, according to which the contested provision would merely provide for a reserved quota in favor of members of the State Police with at least three years of seniority, requiring an express option in this regard by the applicants.

Therefore, since the appellant in the main proceedings does not appear to have opted for access to the reserved quota, his claim should have been dismissed without the need for examination on the merits and, consequently, for application of the rule.

2.1.– The objection is unfounded.

The interpretation offered by the Attorney General's Office is contradicted, first of all, by the literal wording of the contested provision, according to which "[m]embers of the State Police roles with at least three years of effective service as of the date of the notice announcing the competition are also admitted to participate in the competition, with a reservation of one-sixth of the available positions," the applicable scope of which appears general, and not limited to the reserved quota.

In any case, participation in the competition by the beneficiaries of the reserved quota is not conditional on the expression of an option.

In fact, the public competition is configured as a single procedure, to which beneficiaries gain access upon ordinary application; they participate in the required tests on equal terms with other competitors, and their right to the reservation is taken into account when drawing up the final ranking of winners, in which case, if applicable, they are preferred to external competitors who have obtained a better score.

3.– On the merits, the questions are unfounded.

3.1.– Article 27-bis of D.P.R. no. 335 of 1982 was introduced into the Police personnel system by Article 3, paragraph 1, letter b), of Legislative Decree February 28, 2001, no. 53 (Supplementary and corrective provisions of Legislative Decree May 12, 1995, no. 197, regarding the reorganization of the careers of non-managerial personnel of the State Police).

In its original text, paragraph 1, letter b), stipulated that participation in the public competition for Deputy Inspector was subject to the maximum age limit "set by the regulation adopted pursuant to Article 3, paragraph 6, of Law May 15, 1997, no. 127," according to which "[p]articipation in competitions announced by public administrations is not subject to age limits, except for derogations dictated by regulations of individual administrations related to the nature of the service or to objective needs of the administration."

3.2.– Subsequently, with Article 8, paragraph 1, of Law August 7, 2015, no. 124 (Delegations to the Government regarding the reorganization of public administrations), the Government was delegated, inter alia, to reorganize the regulations for Police Forces personnel with a view to rationalization and savings, with the possibility of also modifying the regulations on recruitment, "taking into account merit and professional skills" (letter a, number 1).

In exercising this delegation, with Article 1, paragraph 1, letter q), of Legislative Decree May 29, 2017, no. 95, containing "Provisions regarding the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a), of Law August 7, 2015, no. 124, regarding the reorganization of public administrations," the Government modified paragraph 1 of Article 27-bis, directly establishing the maximum age limit of twenty-eight years already established by the regulation adopted in the interim; in the face of this requirement, the provision for a reserved quota in favor of members of the State Police roles with at least three years of effective service seniority as of the date of the notice was maintained, without age limit, in order to enhance the prior professional experiences of the latter, in compliance with the instructions of the delegating legislator.

Following this amendment, the new regulation, adopted with the aforementioned D.M. no. 103 of 2018, identified the age limits for participation in the public competitions under review, which are the subject of challenge in the main proceedings, and which reproduce the text of the primary rule.

3.3.– From the regulatory framework thus summarized, it emerges, therefore, the provision of a general age requirement set by the primary source with the identification of a maximum age, from which it is possible to derogate in order to enhance the professional skills acquired by applicants, where the latter have reached a minimum threshold of service seniority.

4.– Given these coordinates, the first question suffers from the erroneous interpretative premise from which the referral order proceeds.

The TAR Lazio argues, in fact, that the contested provision arbitrarily introduced an additional requirement for access to the public competition for Deputy Inspector, resulting in a restriction of the pool of possible participants, in violation of the principle of public competition and the standard of reasonableness under Article 3 of the Constitution.

The challenge is therefore formulated without taking into account the fact that the requirement at issue is, in reality, only the age requirement generally established by the primary rule, with respect to which the seniority threshold acts solely as a condition for the operation of a hypothesis of derogation; the practical effect of the contested provision on the pool of subjects entitled to participate in the competition is, therefore, the opposite of what is alleged by the appellant, as it does not lead to a restriction, but an expansion thereof.

5.– The same considerations are also relevant in the examination of the second question.

5.1.– As stated, the purpose of the contested provision is to enhance the experience and professionalism acquired by individuals already belonging to the State Police administration, whose relevance justifies a derogation from the maximum age limit.

In this regard, this Court has consistently affirmed that the principle of public competition, under Article 97, fourth paragraph, of the Constitution, is not in itself incompatible, within the logic of facilitating the good governance of the public administration, with the legislative provision of access conditions intended to consolidate prior work experience accrued within the same administration.

It has been observed, in particular, that "The enhancement of work experiences accrued over time [...] can [...] affect the determination of the requirements for admission to the competition, entrusted to the broad discretion of the legislator," and that "the balance between the identification of the ordinary requirements for admission to the competition [...] and the derogation from this identification, aimed at enhancing prior work experiences, must be sought in compliance with the 'limit of the principles of reasonableness and safeguarding the good governance of the public administration'" (Judgment no. 275 of 2020).

With regard to the latter point, it has been specified that the area of exceptions must be "strictly delimited" and "subordinate to the verification of specific functional needs of the administration and to the performance of procedures for verifying the activity carried out" (Judgments no. 310 and no. 189 of 2011; in the same sense, Judgments no. 113 of 2017, no. 167 of 2013 and no. 52 of 2011).

5.2.– These conditions are met in the present case.

The first condition, in fact, is satisfied by the reservation being limited to one-sixth of the positions offered for competition.

As for the second condition, and contrary to what is maintained by the referring judge, the choice to enhance the professional experience acquired by State Police personnel appears consistent with the organizational functions proper to members of the Inspector roles.

The latter, in fact, pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 3, of D.P.R. no. 335 of 1982, "[i]n relation to the professionalism and aptitudes possessed [...] carry out tasks of protecting public order and safety and judicial police, with particular regard to investigative activity" and may be assigned the "direction of detachments or equivalent operational offices or units, with the connected responsibilities for the directives and instructions given and for the results achieved," as well as "training or instruction tasks for State Police personnel."

With reference to these functions, characterized by the entrustment of management and coordination activities, the provision of special access conditions in favor of applicants who have already acquired significant experience within the Police administration is well-founded.

6.– The third challenge is also unfounded in relation to both aspects in which it is articulated.

6.1.– In alleging a disparity of treatment in access to the competition between members of the State Police roles and personnel from the civil roles of the Ministry of the Interior, the referring judge is making a comparison between non-homogeneous situations, as they are characterized by functions that are distinctly different from each other.

Civil role personnel perform, pursuant to Article 36, first paragraph, letter I), of Law April 1, 1981, no. 121 (New organization of the Public Security Administration), "administrative, accounting, and property functions" as well as "executive duties of a non-technical and manual nature"; these are therefore tasks extraneous to the scope of police functions, which excludes any possible relevance, in terms of enhancing acquired experience, of service seniority.

6.2.– As for the alleged disparity of treatment compared to the regulation of access to the competition for Deputy Commissioner, the referring judge compares a provision that has a derogatory nature and which, moreover, refers to a general rule that does not provide any seniority requirement, but only a maximum age of thirty years, raised to forty for applicants already belonging to the State Police roles.

Indeed, this Court has stated that "the violation of the principle of equality cannot be invoked when the provision of law [whose extension the referring judge requests] proves to be derogatory with respect to the rule derivable from the legal system and, as such, not extendable to other cases, leading to an aggravation rather than an elimination of inconsistencies" (Judgment no. 98 of 2023 and Order no. 231 of 2009; in the same sense, Judgments no. 206 of 2004 and no. 383 of 1992; Orders no. 344 of 2008 and no. 178 of 2006).

7.– The foregoing considerations lead to deeming the fourth challenge unfounded as well.

Once it is established that the minimum seniority threshold does not constitute a requirement for participation in the public competition, but a condition for derogation from the age requirement, and that it is not unreasonable, as it is justified by specific functional needs of the administration and is contained within a certain limit, so as to conform to the principle of good governance of the public administration, the parameters of constitutionality of the contested provision are satisfied.

The further considerations of the referring judge, aimed at emphasizing the fact that this provision is more suitable for the internal competition for the same Deputy Inspector position, are therefore exempt from any assessment of conformity with the Constitution, as they pertain to the merits of the legislator's choices, which cannot be reviewed in this venue.

for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 27-bis, paragraph 2, of Decree of the President of the Republic of April 24, 1982, no. 335 (Regulations concerning the personnel of the State Police performing police functions), raised, in reference to Articles 3, 51, and 97 of the Constitution, by the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, First Section Four, with the order indicated in the heading.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on July 9, 2025.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on October 9, 2025

 

The anonymized version conforms, in text, to the original