JUDGMENT NO. 140

YEAR 2026

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

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

JUDGMENT

in the proceedings concerning the constitutionality of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 May 2017 (Provisions concerning the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, on the reorganization of public administrations), as amended by Article 14, paragraph 1, letter n), of Legislative Decree No. 126 of 5 October 2018 (Supplementary and corrective provisions, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 6, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, to Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 May 2017, bearing «Provisions concerning the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, on the reorganization of public administrations»), brought by the Council of State, Sixth Section, by orders of 2 January 2026, registered under numbers 20, 21, 22 and 56 of the 2026 register of orders and published in the Official Journal of the Republic, numbers 7 and 16, 1st special series, of the year 2026.

Having regard to the appearances of R. A. et al., M. A. et al., S. B. et al., C. A. et al., G. M., B. A. et al. (out of time), as well as the intervention briefs of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard Judge Rapporteur Emanuela Navarretta at the public hearing of 24 June 2026;

having heard Counsel Salvatore Pesce for B. A. and the other intervening parties, Counsel Sgobba for R. A. and the other intervening parties, Counsel Fabrizio Lofoco for G. M., as well as State Counsel Emma Damiani for the President of the Council of Ministers;

deliberated in the chambers on 24 June 2026.

Summary of Facts

1.– By four identically worded orders dated 2 January 2026, registered under numbers 20, 21, 22, and 56 of the 2026 register of orders, the Council of State, Sixth Section, raised questions as to the constitutional legitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 May 2017 (Provisions concerning the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, on the reorganization of public administrations), as amended by Article 14, paragraph 1, letter n), of Legislative Decree No. 126 of 5 October 2018 (Supplementary and corrective provisions, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 6, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, to Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 May 2017, bearing «Provisions concerning the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, on the reorganization of public administrations»), for violation of Articles 3, first and second paragraphs, and 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution.

The provision is deemed constitutionally illegitimate «insofar as it does not provide for the retroactive dating back to 1 January of the year following the year in which the staff shortage is ascertained or, purely in the alternative, to 2016 (1 January or 31 December)» (order registered under No. 20 of the 2026 register of orders), or, likewise in the alternative, to «1 January 2017, the final date indicated by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 July 2017» (orders registered under Nos. 21 and 56 of the 2026 register of orders), or similarly «in the alternative, [to] 1 January 2018, the final date indicated by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 July 2017» (order registered under No. 22 of the 2026 register of orders).

2.– The Council of State reports that, in the main proceedings (*judicia a quibus*), it is required to rule on the appeals brought by various members of the State Police against the judgments of the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio, which had dismissed the challenges brought against the acts assigning them to the role of technical deputy superintendent, adopted by the administration following internal promotion competitions held pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017.

Specifically, the winners of the aforementioned competitions had challenged before the Regional Administrative Court for Lazio the application of a legal seniority starting from the day following the completion of their respective technical-professional training courses, as provided for by the challenged rule, rather than pursuant to the provisions of Article 20-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 24 April 1982 (Regulations on the personnel of the State Police performing technical-scientific or technical activities), which calculates legal seniority starting from 1 January of the year following the year in which staff vacancies occurred.

3.– The Council of State, through identical wording in the four referring orders, reports that it has dismissed, by means of non-final judgments, all the grounds of appeal with the exception of the one challenging the dismissal of the request to raise questions concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended by Article 14, paragraph 1, letter n), of Legislative Decree No. 126 of 2018.

4.– In stating the grounds for relevance, the referring judge cites the text of the aforementioned provision, pointing out that it «expressly excludes (*expressis verbis*) the extension to deputy inspectors with police functions [correctly: technical deputy superintendents] of the "principle of annuality” regarding the legal effective date of appointment (with reference to the time of the vacancy (*vacatio*) of the respective positions)».

Indeed, the provision – observes the judge a quo – expressly provides for legal effect to run «from the day following the date of completion of the respective technical-professional training course». Consequently, its literal meaning, being incompatible with «the retroactive dating back of the assignment of winners of the various competitions held on an annual basis», is such as «to rule out ab initio any constitutionally oriented interpretation» of the provision subject to these proceedings.

The Council of State therefore considers that the claims made by the appellants could be upheld only if the challenged provision were declared constitutionally illegitimate, under the terms set out above.

5.– The referring judge proceeds to argue that the questions of constitutional legitimacy are not manifestly unfounded, with reference to Articles 3, first and second paragraphs, and 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution.

5.1.– With regard to Article 3, first paragraph, of the Constitution, invoked on the grounds of intrinsic unreasonableness and inequality of treatment compared to those promoted to deputy superintendent under ordinary procedures, the Council of State observes that the different competition procedure for achieving said promotion does not justify the different rules governing the effective date of legal seniority.

Both procedures, both the ordinary one and the one governed by the challenged rule, serve the same purpose of selecting and advancing the most suitable personnel in their careers. The only discrepancy concerns the manner (*quomodo*) of access, since, while under the ordinary procedure «the assessment [is carried out] through the holding of the competition and the relative training course», the extraordinary procedure allows the public administration to proceed with a selection «through a competition reserved for personnel with the qualification of technical chief assistant who, in the two-year period preceding the year in which the competitions are announced, have not received a disciplinary penalty more severe than a reprimand (*deplorazione*) and have not received an overall performance rating lower than good».

Therefore, according to the referring judge, the different regime governing the legal effects upon entering the role would not be justified and would result in an inequality of treatment, as well as an «irrationality of the provision which ends up undermining and subverting the very *ratio* of the institution in question».

«Personnel promoted (even in supernumerary positions) through internal competitions in the years 2017/2018/2019» would unjustifiably find themselves «in an inferior positional rank compared to those participating in subsequent competitions announced by the same Administration for the same qualification, as the latter can benefit from the introduced legal fiction (*fictio iuris*) of retroactive effect for legal purposes to 1 January of the year following the one in which the staff shortage was ascertained». This inferior positional rank in the performance of the same duties would then affect «both subsequent career progression (as seniority in the role is relevant also for vertical progression in further procedures to access higher roles) and the application of other ordinary administrative institutions connected to the status of State Police employee».

The Council of State therefore deems «well-founded the argument of the appellants who complain of a lack of career progression, a failure to entrust them with the management of offices, the inadequacy of their salary treatment, and a misalignment with their peers who are superintendents in the ordinary role».

5.2.– As regards the violation of Article 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution, the referring judge observes that «the maintenance, in the face of previously homogeneous rules, of a difference in the effective date of legal effects between the two promotion scenarios to the same higher qualification, has the potential to represent a substantial hollowing out of the institution in question and thus a blatant violation of the principle of efficiency, impartiality, and sound administration of the Public Administration».

5.3.– In support of the aforementioned complaints, the Council of State recalls that, by judgments No. 224 of 2020 and No. 75 of 2024 of this Court, the violation of Articles 3 and 97 of the Constitution has already been established within the scope of deemed similar issues.

In the first case, a violation of Article 3 of the Constitution was found, due to unjustified inequality of treatment and intrinsic unreasonableness, with respect to a rule that allowed deputy superintendents of the State Police promoted for extraordinary merits (Article 71 of Presidential Decree No. 335 of 24 April 1982, bearing «Regulations on the personnel of the State Police performing police functions») to be bypassed by other winners of internal selection procedures in the same role, to whom the legal retroactivity regime applies. Furthermore, the violation of the principle of equality was correlated with a breach (*vulnus*) of Article 97 of the Constitution, on the premise that the arbitrarily different treatment of similar situations conflicts with the «principle of impartiality, which must characterize the action of the public administration» (Judgment No. 224 of 2020).

The same considerations were made in the second judgment mentioned above, concerning the identical legal institution of promotion for extraordinary merits within the penitentiary police system.

6.– The appellant parties in the four *judicia a quibus* have entered appearances in these proceedings; however, in the case registered under No. 20 of the 2026 register of orders, the appearance of some of them was filed out of time.

The timely notices of appearance, which are identical to one another, set forth arguments in favor of granting the questions of constitutional legitimacy.

6.1.– In particular, with regard to the complaints under Article 3 of the Constitution, the defense briefs of the parties focus on the «profound and iniquitous disparity» that the challenged rule allegedly caused between the technical role personnel and the ordinary role personnel of the State Police. Prior to this intervention, in fact, access to the initial qualification of the technical superintendents' role «was governed by the same favorable mechanism of retroactive dating of the legal effective date of appointment».

The disruption of this symmetry caused by the aforementioned legislation – as stated in the notices of appearance – «altered a consolidated balance [...] without any justification that can be called reasonable or proportionate to the stated purposes of career reorganization». Indeed, «the different competition procedure to achieve promotion to deputy superintendent does not justify the maintenance of different rules concerning the retroactive dating of legal effects», given that both procedures, both the ordinary and the extraordinary ones, respond «to the need to select and advance the most suitable personnel in their careers».

This results in «serious prejudice» connected to «lack of career progression, failure to entrust them with the management of offices, inadequacy of salary treatment, and misalignment with their peers who are superintendents in the ordinary role».

The defense briefs of the parties also highlight the leapfrogging (*scavalcamento*) effect produced by the new legislative framework. Technical role personnel, «despite having participated in competitions announced to remedy staff vacancies dating back in time», found themselves overtaken «by colleagues from the ordinary role, often younger in age, who, despite having passed subsequent competition procedures relating to more recent vacancies, benefited from a legal effective date retroactively dated by years».

According to the parties, this leapfrogging in favor of the ordinary role Police personnel translated into concrete dysfunctions and demotivation of the technical role personnel, which undermined «the clarity of the chain of command», hindered «the assignment of duties and responsibilities based on merit and experience», and compromised «the overall efficiency of the Administration».

The parties' defense briefs also dwell on judgments No. 75 of 2024 and No. 224 of 2020 of this Court, which lend support to the reasons for upholding the raised questions of constitutional legitimacy.

6.2.– Finally, in support of the violation of Article 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution, the parties note that the challenged rules would force the Public Administration to act in a «manifestly partial» manner, in contrast with the principles of sound administration and impartiality, given the demotivation and subversion of the very *ratio* of the competition institutions. A system that produces leapfrogging is intrinsically contrary to efficiency, frustrating the legitimate expectations of the personnel and undermining the internal climate of trust and cooperation within the Public Administration.

7.– In the proceedings registered under No. 56 of the 2026 register of orders, G. M., a party to the proceedings *a quo* in the capacity of an interested party (*controinteressato*), has also entered an appearance.

In the notice of appearance, the party specifies that its procedural position derives from the transposition into judicial proceedings of the extraordinary appeal to the President of the Republic originally notified, and that it intends to assert an interest coinciding with that of the appellants in the main proceedings, as it is the winner of the same competition.

The party therefore declares that it associates itself with the reasoning contained in the referring order and insists that the complaints raised with reference to Article 3 of the Constitution be upheld, given that Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended, introduced unreasonable rules that are unjustifiably detrimental both compared to those established for the technical role outside the peculiar regime provided for by the challenged rule, and compared to those provided for the ordinary role personnel.

Furthermore, it supports the arguments in favor of the violation of Article 97 of the Constitution, highlighting the risk of disparities and career misalignments within the same role, which would alter the sound administration and impartiality of administrative action.

8.– The President of the Council of Ministers intervened in the proceedings, represented and defended by the State Attorney General’s Office (*Avvocatura generale dello Stato*), by filing identically worded briefs.

8.1.– As a preliminary matter, the inadmissibility of the questions of constitutional legitimacy is excepted on the grounds of a lack of relevance (*difetto di rilevanza*), since the retroactive dating of legal seniority to a time prior to appointment constitutes an exceptional rule. Therefore, even following a potential ablative judgment of constitutional illegitimacy, such legislation could not be applied extensively or by analogy and, consequently, «would never directly (*de plano*) grant the applicants the coveted benefit».

Correspondingly, the state defense points out the ambiguity of the orders in setting forth the petitum, as it is not clear whether the Council of State is asking for the mere elimination of the clause concerning the legal effective date or is soliciting a true additive intervention aimed at introducing a different criterion for effective dates.

In light of this uncertainty, the inadmissibility of the complaints is therefore reiterated, citing judgments of this Court No. 250 of 2021 and No. 21 of 2020, and order No. 95 of 2023, on the premise that «any upholding of the claims would have the sole effect of opening a future possibility, without in itself guaranteeing the attribution of the asset of life (*bene della vita*) which is the subject matter of the proceedings *a quo*» and taking into account the absence of «a substitute rule "with bound rhymes” [such as to] allow the referring judge to settle the proceedings in a determined sense».

8.2.– On the merits, the State Attorney General’s Office observes that the Council of State's assumption, according to which the different nature of the selection procedure would not be capable of justifying a detrimental regime, translates into a «petitio principii», since, while acknowledging the diversity of the compared situations, it fails to admit «disciplinary diversities».

8.2.1.– In particular, the state defense notes how the extraordinary competition is placed in an exceptional and transitional regulatory context, whereby the legislature, in implementing a career reorganization, including through the rebalancing of staff sizes, authorized the holding of extraordinary procedures. These allowed access to the role of technical superintendents through a qualifications-only competition and in supernumerary positions compared to the authorized establishment of 1,831 units, reaching the higher number of 2,192 units, with the declared aim of remedying staff vacancies recorded in the preceding decade, from 2006 to 2016.

It is therefore observed that it would have been unreasonable to extend the benefit of retroactive dating to the selection rounds in question, as this would be precluded by the significant seniority of the staff vacancies to be remedied, which would have resulted in the attribution of a considerable fictitious seniority, disproportionate to any other selection procedure.

8.2.2.– The State Attorney General’s Office also rules out the possibility that participants in the extraordinary selections could be leapfrogged by those who take part in subsequent competitions announced by the same Public Administration for the same qualification. Not only, in fact, «[f]ollowing the conclusion (12 April 2022) of the last of the three extraordinary competitions whose winners were appointed with an effective date of 13 July 2022, no competition (neither ordinary nor extraordinary) has been announced for technical deputy superintendent», but even had this happened and had the retroactivity of the appointment been applied, at most the staff shortages as of 31 December 2022 could have been considered, with legal seniority starting from 1 January 2023.

This alone suffices to differentiate the present questions from what was decided in the aforementioned judgments No. 224 of 2020 and No. 75 of 2024 of this Court.

8.2.3.– In concluding the merits-based observations on the complaint under Article 3 of the Constitution, the State Attorney General’s Office specifies that «the retroactive dating of seniority is of an exceptional nature and does not constitute an effect constitutionally mandated by Article 3 of the Constitution, so that the legislature retains a broad margin of discretion in differentiating the treatment of categories placed in distinct procedural contexts, including regarding the effective date of seniority, without being required to automatically extend the same preferential mechanism to all of them».

8.2.4.– Finally, with reference to the alleged violation of Article 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution, the state defense denies that the legislative choice to calculate the legal seniority of the qualification starting from the actual acquisition of the role can be said to conflict with the principles of impartiality and sound administration.

Indeed, the legislature adopted a criterion for calculating seniority that is faithful to reality and avoided granting an excessively dated fictitious seniority, without at the same time causing prejudice to the winners of the extraordinary competitions, «such prejudice not being identifiable as the mere factual expectation of enjoying the benefit of retroactivity».

9.– All the appellant parties in the *judicia a quibus* who entered timely appearances filed briefs of identical tenor shortly before the public hearing.

9.1.– On preliminary matters, the briefs contest the exceptions of inadmissibility raised by the President of the Council of Ministers. In particular, they point out that the referring judge accurately and unambiguously identified the substitute rule, which consists in the retroactive dating of legal seniority to 1 January of the year following the one in which the staff vacancy was ascertained, and has thus proven the relevance of the complaints, as the granting of the questions would be decisive for the settlement of the main proceedings.

Correspondingly, the parties rule out the possibility that the *petitum* can be considered uncertain.

9.2.– On the merits, as regards the exceptional nature of the retroactivity mechanism, which would leave a broad margin of discretion to the legislature in differentiating the treatment of categories placed in distinct procedural contexts, the parties object that this does not imply a matter of «"free” discretion». Instead, it involves «assessing [equality of treatment] in relation to the constitutional rights and interests at stake», without prejudice to the possible independent review in terms of intrinsic unreasonableness.

Also on the merits, the briefs make use of an exemplary comparison between the effects of the competition for ordinary role superintendents announced in 2017 and the position of participants in the 2017-2019 selections for technical role superintendents, in order to reiterate that «personnel subsequently inducted into the qualification via the ordinary path benefit from a legal seniority prior to that of the technical personnel already in the qualification, resulting in the inferior positional rank stigmatized by the Council of State itself, with effects on career progressions and institutions connected to status».

10.– Lastly, G. M., a party to the proceedings initiated by the order registered under No. 56 of the 2026 register of orders, also filed a brief shortly before the public hearing.

This brief dwells on the circumstance that «[i]n incidental proceedings before the Constitutional Court, those who are parties to the proceedings *a quo* have standing to intervene», which is the role of the interested party (*controinteressato*) in the proceedings before the Council of State.

The brief then sets forth considerations regarding the admissibility of the questions that are entirely analogous to those developed in the briefs of the other parties and, on the merits, reiterates the arguments in favor of granting the claims.

Conclusions in Law

11.– By four identically worded orders dated 2 January 2026, registered under numbers 20, 21, 22, and 56 of the 2026 register of orders, the Council of State, Sixth Section, raised questions as to the constitutional legitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended by Article 14, paragraph 1, letter n), of Legislative Decree No. 126 of 2018, for violation of Articles 3, first and second paragraphs, and 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution.

The challenged provision – within the framework of regulations concerning the filling of 900 positions for access to the qualification of technical deputy superintendent of the State Police, through qualifications-based competitions reserved for personnel with the qualification of technical chief assistant – provides that the «winners of competitions announced by 2017, 2018, and 2019, shall achieve appointment as technical deputy superintendent in the order determined by the final ranking of the technical-professional training course, lasting no more than three months and no less than one month, with legal and economic effect starting from the day following the date of completion of the respective technical-professional training course».

This provision is deemed by the Council of State to be constitutionally illegitimate insofar as it does not provide for the retroactive dating of legal seniority «to 1 January of the year following the year in which the staff shortage is ascertained or, purely in the alternative, to 2016 (1 January or 31 December)» (order registered under No. 20 of the 2026 register of orders), or, likewise in the alternative, to «1 January 2017, the final date indicated by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 July 2017» (orders registered under Nos. 21 and 56 of the 2026 register of orders), or similarly «in the alternative, [to] 1 January 2018, the final date indicated by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 July 2017» (order registered under No. 22 of the 2026 register of orders).

12.– The Council of State, in the aforementioned orders, specifies that it has dismissed, by means of non-final judgments delivered in the respective main proceedings, all the grounds of appeal with the exception of the one challenging the dismissal of the request to raise questions concerning constitutional legitimacy.

Having highlighted the impossibility of subjecting the challenged rule to a constitutionally compliant interpretation, given its literal wording, the judge *a quo* raised questions concerning constitutional legitimacy with reference to Articles 3, first and second paragraphs, and 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution.

12.1.– First of all, the Council of State considers that Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended, gives rise to intrinsic unreasonableness and inequality of treatment between technical deputy superintendents selected through the extraordinary procedure and those who access the same role through normal internal competitions.

For the former, legal seniority runs, as provided by the challenged rule, «from the day following the date of completion of the respective technical-professional training course», whereas for the latter, it runs from «1 January of the year following the year in which the vacancies occurred» (Article 20-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982).

The Council of State further rules out the existence of a reasonable ground to differentiate these scenarios and, in particular, that the different manner of achieving the same promotion can be relevant, because both procedures would respond to the need to select and advance the most suitable personnel in their careers.

Therefore, it deems «well-founded the argument of the appellants who complain of a lack of career progression, a failure to entrust them with the management of offices, the inadequacy of their salary treatment, and a misalignment with their peers who are superintendents in the ordinary role».

12.2.– The referring judge also identifies a conflict with Article 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution, observing that the different effective date of legal effects in the two promotion scenarios to the same higher qualification would result in a violation of the principles of impartiality and sound administration of the Public Administration.

13.– As a preliminary matter, it must be noted that the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised by the four referring orders, being identical to one another, must be dealt with jointly by joining the proceedings.

14.– It must also be acknowledged that, by an order read at the public hearing of 24 June 2026 and attached to this judgment, the appearance in court of B. A., P. B., S. C., A. C., C. C., L. D.A., A. D.A., C. D.A., C. D.F., F. D.M., G. D.P., C. E., S. G., L. G., P. L., P. L., S. M., L. O., S. P., N. P., F. P., P. P., A. P., D. R., O. R., F. R., A. R., F. R., A. S., M.T. S.E., S. S., M. T., and F. Z. was declared inadmissible, as it was filed out of time and followed by a request for relief from forfeiture (*rimessione in termini*), proposed at the hearing, which was completely devoid of justifying reasons.

15.– On preliminary matters (*in rito*), the two exceptions of inadmissibility raised by the President of the Council of Ministers must first be examined.

15.1.– The first exception alleged a defect of relevance, since following any ablative judgment, the rules concerning the retroactive dating of legal seniority, being exceptional in nature, could not be applied extensively or by analogy, and therefore «would never directly grant the applicants the coveted benefit».

15.2.– By the second exception, the state defense pointed out the ambiguity of the orders, from which it was allegedly unclear whether the judge *a quo* was asking for the mere elimination of the clause concerning the legal effective date or was soliciting an additive intervention aimed at introducing a different criterion for effective dates.

16.– The two exceptions are unfounded.

16.1.– Giving priority, in logical order, to the second exception, it must be noted that the referring orders are not ambiguous at all, since, principally, they request a declaration of the constitutional illegitimacy of the challenged rule, «insofar as it does not provide for retroactive dating back to 1 January of the year following the year in which the staff shortage is ascertained». They essentially propose an additive intervention modeled on the content of Article 20-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982.

In the alternative, the orders then request an alternative retroactive dating, correlated «to the final date indicated» by Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, which refers to «positions overall available in the establishment as of 31 December 2016».

It is true that this solution is calibrated differently in each order: the one registered under No. 20 of the 2026 register of orders specifically indicates 31 December 2016 (as an alternative to 1 January of that same year); the orders registered under numbers 21 and 56 of the 2006 [sic: 2026] register of orders adapt the aforementioned parameter to the rule of Article 20-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982 and, therefore, refer to 1 January 2017; finally, the order registered under No. 22 of the 2026 register of orders refers to 1 January 2018.

Nevertheless, in all the orders, the intent to obtain an additive ruling is clear, according to the various retroactive dates indicated principally or in the alternative.

There is therefore no ambiguity in the *petitum*, especially since the solution proposed by the judge *a quo* is not binding on this Court, which, «should it deem the questions well-founded, remains free to identify the most suitable ruling for the *reductio ad legem* of the challenged provision (Judgments No. 146 and No. 53 of 2025 and No. 46 of 2024)» (Judgment No. 85 of 2026).

16.2.– Having thus demonstrated the referring judge's clear intent to obtain an additive judgment containing, in the solution proposed principally, a precept modeled on Article 20-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982, the exception of lack of relevance also falls.

Any upholding of the complaints would indeed allow the Council of State to grant the appellants the retroactive dating of legal seniority requested in the main proceedings.

17.– Having ruled out the merits of the two preliminary exceptions, it is necessary instead to raise *sua sponte* the inadmissibility, due to lack of reasoning on the non-manifest unfoundedness, of the complaint raised with reference to Article 3, second paragraph, of the Constitution.

The referring orders invoke this constitutional provision without arguing anything in this regard, so that the apodictic reference to the allegedly violated parameter must be considered unsuitable – according to the consistent case law of this Court – to satisfy the requirement of reasoning on non-manifest unfoundedness (latest cases: Judgments No. 51 of 2026, No. 83, No. 64, and No. 3 of 2024, No. 135 of 2023, as well as Orders No. 127 of 2024 and No. 196 of 2023).

18.– A similar *sua sponte* finding of inadmissibility must also be formulated as regards the proposition of an inequality of treatment between the challenged rules and those applicable to the winners of competitions for superintendents in the ordinary role, for whom the retroactivity mechanism pursuant to Article 24-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 335 of 1982 operates.

Such a complaint, which the parties' defenses dwell on above all, can be inferred only from an arcane incidental remark contained in the reasoning of the referring orders, which, arguing on the different complaints of intrinsic unreasonableness and inequality of treatment compared to technical role personnel participating in normal internal competitions, assert the well-foundedness of the appellants' argument complaining, among other things, of «misalignment with their peers who are superintendents in the ordinary role».

Well then, this elliptical reference is not sufficient to substantiate an additional complaint of inequality of treatment, as there is a complete lack of independent reasoning on non-manifest unfoundedness (*ex plurimis*, Judgments No. 51 of 2026, No. 5 of 2025, No. 112 of 2024, No. 198 and No. 108 of 2023, as well as Orders No. 127 of 2024 and No. 196 of 2023).

It remains understood that the issue of misalignment with ordinary role superintendents may be relevant to the extent that it intersects with the alleged intrinsic unreasonableness of the challenged rule.

19.– Moving on to examine the merits, it is necessary to premise a reconstruction of the regulatory context within which Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended by Article 14, paragraph 1, letter n), of Legislative Decree No. 126 of 2018, is placed.

19.1.– It should first be recalled that – by virtue of an initial reorganization provided for by Article 36, first paragraph, point I), of Law No. 121 of 1 April 1981 (New organization of the Public Security Administration) – non-management personnel of the State Police were divided into three groups of roles relating to those who perform: i) police functions; ii) technical-scientific or technical activities pertaining to police services; iii) professional duties whose exercise presupposes registration in professional registers.

In implementation of this provision, the organization of personnel intended for police functions was regulated by Presidential Decree No. 335 of 1982, which categorized said personnel into the roles of agents and assistants, superintendents, and inspectors (Article 1), dividing the first two roles respectively into the ranks of agents, selected agents, assistants, and chief assistants (Article 4) and those of deputy superintendents, superintendents, and chief superintendents (Article 24-bis).

As for personnel performing technical-scientific (or technical) activities, they were in turn regulated by Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982 and organized into the roles of technical agents and assistants (formerly technical operators and collaborators, until the change of designations introduced by Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017), technical superintendents (formerly technical reviewers), and technical inspectors (formerly technical experts) (Article 1). The first two roles then contemplate within them the ranks of technical agents, selected technical agents, technical assistants, and technical chief assistants (Article 3), as well as those of technical deputy superintendents, technical superintendents, and technical chief superintendents (Article 20-bis).

19.2.– The role of technical superintendents is the one addressed by the challenged rule, which is framed within the context of a new reorganization of the State Police provided for by Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, and subsequent corrective decrees, in implementation of the delegation under Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a), of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015 (Delegations to the Government regarding the reorganization of public administrations).

In particular, this reorganization affected the establishment (*dotazione organica*) for technical superintendents, the methods of access to this role, and the legal effective date of induction into the role.

19.2.1.– Regarding the establishment, it should be noted that whereas, prior to the reform introduced by Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, the establishment of the then technical reviewers consisted of 2,400 units, as inferable from Table A attached to Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982, subsequently – with the new wording of Table A introduced by the aforementioned legislative decree – the establishment of (renamed) technical superintendents was brought to 1,838 units. Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, letter fff), also of the aforementioned legislative decree, the establishment was supposed to decrease, starting from 31 December 2018, until reaching, as of 1 January 2027, 852 units.

Finally, by Article 15, paragraph 1, letter b), of Decree-Law No. 44 of 22 April 2023 (Urgent provisions for strengthening the administrative capacity of public administrations), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 74 of 21 June 2023, an increase of 4 units was ordered, so that in Table A contained in Annex 4 of the same decree-law, it was established that the role of superintendents would become 1,665 units, effective from 1 January 2023, and 856 units, starting from 1 January 2027.

In the face of the aforementioned contraction of the establishment in the technical role, the establishment of the ordinary role was instead increased. In particular, Article 3, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 established that, by 1 January 2021, the expansion of the establishment was to reach «24,000 units, through the reduction of the establishment of the roles of technical operators and collaborators».

19.2.2.– As for the methods of access to the roles of technical superintendents, in the initial rank, the reorganization rules (Article 20-quater of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982, as amended by Article 1, paragraph 2, letter m, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017), on the one hand, provided for: i) the reservation of 70 percent of the positions for personnel holding the rank of technical chief assistant to be allocated through comparative merit screening and the completion of a technical-professional training course; ii) the reservation of the remaining 30 percent of the positions for personnel in the role of technical agents and assistants who have completed at least four years of effective service, to be allocated on the basis of a qualifications and examinations competition.

On the other hand, Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 provided, on a transitional basis, exclusively for competitions to be announced in the years 2017, 2018, and 2019, for a selection based on qualifications and with a guarantee of duty station (*sede*), to cover 900 positions for access to the rank of technical deputy superintendent, entirely reserved for technical chief assistants who, in the two-year period preceding the year of the competition notice, had not received a disciplinary penalty more severe than a reprimand and had not received an overall performance rating lower than good.

19.2.3.– It is precisely within this transitional framework that the legislature provided for the challenged rule, which established, for the winners of the aforementioned extraordinary competitions, that legal seniority would run from the day following the completion of the respective technical-professional training course.

A similar provision applies on a transitional basis the same regime that operated for the induction into the role of deputy superintendents prior to 2001, when Legislative Decree No. 53 of that same year provided, both for ordinary role deputy superintendents (Article 24-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 335 of 1982) and for technical role ones (Article 20-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982), the rule whereby legal seniority runs «from 1 January of the year following the year in which the vacancies occurred».

19.3.– Ultimately, with the 2017 reform and subsequent corrective measures, the legislature pursued a threefold objective.

First, it intended to significantly reduce the establishment of technical superintendents, bringing it from the 2,400 units of technical reviewers prior to the reform to 1,838 units and then, from 2018 to 2027, to 852 units, later recalibrated to 856 units.

Second, it sought to protect those who, in the role of technical chief assistants, had developed a legitimate expectation with regard to career development, and to this end, it provided – over the span of three years – which in practice became, as the procedures unfolded, approximately a quinquennium – three competitions for 900 positions of technical deputy superintendent to be conducted through a qualifications-only selection and with a guarantee of maintaining the duty station, entirely reserved for technical chief assistants. At the same time, this intervention was functional to a reduction of the roles of technical agents and assistants (formerly technical operators and collaborators), which served to allow the expansion of the establishment of superintendents in the ordinary role (supra point 19.2.1. and Article 3, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 cited therein).

Finally, the legislature deemed it necessary to remedy «staff vacancies in the role of technical superintendents [...] which had remained blocked for over a decade» (as stated in the parties' appearance briefs and the intervention briefs of the President of the Council of Ministers), establishing that the filling of the aforementioned 900 positions was to be carried out «within the limits of the positions overall available in the establishment as of 31 December 2016, and within the limits of the resources available for such establishment under current legislation within the establishment provided for in Table A attached to Presidential Decree No. 337 of 24 April 1982, in the text in force on the day preceding the date of entry into force of this decree» (Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll, of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017).

In this way, the concomitant reduction of units in the establishments and the filling of all positions available as of 31 December 2016, within the limits of available resources compared to a table providing for 2,400 units, resulted in the filling of all previous vacancies, so much so that, following the conclusion of the last extraordinary competition, against an established establishment of 1,831 units destined to decrease, within the aforementioned times, down to 856 units, there was an actual strength of 2,192 effective units (in this sense, the intervention briefs of the President of the Council of Ministers, which were not contested on this point by the parties).

20.– Having premised the above, the complaints raised with reference to Article 3, first paragraph, of the Constitution must be examined first, under the dual aspects of intrinsic unreasonableness and inequality of treatment between the addressees of the challenged rule and those who access the rank of technical deputy superintendent through normal internal selection.

In particular, the Council of State shares «the argument of the appellants who complain of a lack of career progression, a failure to entrust them with the management of offices, the inadequacy of their salary treatment, and a misalignment with their peers who are superintendents in the ordinary role».

The questions are unfounded.

21.– First of all, it must be specified that legal seniority, while certainly relevant in terms of internal hierarchy within the offices of each role (Article 3 of Presidential Decree No. 335 of 1982, also applicable to technical personnel), conversely can affect promotions outside the same role and other procedures (starting from transfers) only if, in the formation of rankings, the allocation of a differential score based thereon has been provided for.

Furthermore, legal seniority influences neither promotions within the role, which consider only "effective” service in the rank (Articles 20-ter, paragraph 3, 20-sexies, and 20-septies of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982), nor salary treatment. In particular, for technical deputy superintendents, fixed remuneration depends solely on the rank (as to salary: Article 2, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree No. 193 of 30 May 2003, bearing «System of salary parameters for non-management personnel of the Police Forces and Armed Forces, pursuant to Article 7 of Law No. 86 of 29 March 2001» and the attached Table 1, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017; as to pensionable allowance: Article 43, third paragraph, of Law No. 121 of 1981 and, lastly, Article 4 of Presidential Decree No. 53 of 24 March 2025, bearing «Implementation of collective bargaining agreements relating to the 2022-2024 three-year period for civilian and military police force personnel»), whereas the so-called functional allowance is linked to "absolute” seniority of service in the police (Article 6 of Decree-Law No. 387 of 21 September 1987, bearing «Financial coverage of Presidential Decree No. 150 of 10 April 1987, implementing the three-year contractual agreement relating to State Police personnel and extension to other Police Corps», converted, with amendments, into Law No. 472 of 20 November 1987, and subsequent amendments and additions).

22.– Having clarified this, Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended, does not present profiles of intrinsic unreasonableness.

22.1.– First of all, the challenged rule does not entail any risk of leapfrogging in the hierarchical relationship on the part of subsequent winners of competitions in the role of technical deputy superintendent.

This is ruled out *ab initio* by the approach given by the legislature to the reorganization dynamics, which zeroes out vacancies and creates supernumerary positions within the establishment.

Consequently, any subsequent promotions in the role of technical superintendents can only concern vacancies subsequent to the induction into the role of the winners of the extraordinary competitions, with the effect that the retroactive dating of the new promotions, pursuant to the rule of Article 20-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982, would not result in the leapfrogging of the addressees of the challenged rule.

To seal this framework, the subsequent provision of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll-ter), introduced by Article 18, paragraph 1, letter f), of Decree-Law No. 23 of 24 February 2026 (Urgent provisions regarding public security, investigative activities of the judicial authority in the presence of justification causes, functionality of the police forces and the Ministry of the Interior, as well as immigration and international protection), converted, with amendments, into Law No. 54 of 24 April 2026, regulated promotions subsequent to those of the extraordinary competitions, making reference to vacancies (if any) existing as of 31 December of the years 2023, 2024, and 2025. This proves that such potential vacancies can only be subsequent to the allocations made through the extraordinary competitions pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017.

22.2.– To this it must be added that the misalignment itself compared to peer deputy superintendents in the ordinary role does not entail the risk that the latter might surpass the winners of the extraordinary competition for technical deputy superintendents in the hierarchical relationship.

The hierarchical relationships between the two roles, in addition to being regulated by Table B attached to Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982, which equates each ordinary rank to the corresponding technical rank, are governed by Article 5, second paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 782 of 28 October 1985 (Approval of the service regulations of the Public Security Administration), expressly referred to by Article 2, second paragraph, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982, which, given equal roles and ranks, does not give precedence to legal seniority.

Indeed, the provision establishes that «[p]ersonnel of the State Police who perform police functions are subject to duties of subordination toward personnel of the State Police who perform technical-scientific or technical or professional activities of a higher or corresponding rank toward whom a dependency relationship is determined, in relation to the function exercised».

It follows that hierarchy between roles of equal grade is not determined by seniority, but by the nature of the activity to be performed. If a technical investigation is functional to an ordinary police activity, it is the ordinary role personnel of a higher or equal rank who are placed in a preeminent position. Conversely, if a technical investigation requires the support of ordinary personnel, it will be the technical personnel of a higher or equal rank who hold a preeminent hierarchical position.

Therefore, there does not appear to be any risk that deputy superintendents assigned to police services appointed with retroactive seniority would surpass technical deputy superintendents appointed through extraordinary competitions in the hierarchical relationship.

Finally, even wanting to consider rare cases of personnel transfers from the ordinary role to the technical role, it cannot be ignored that, in the context given at the time of the introduction of the reorganization rules, the application of retroactive dating to personnel promoted through extraordinary competitions would cause possible leapfrogging in the reverse direction of ordinary role personnel, given the considerable antiquity of the vacancies in the technical role of deputy superintendent.

22.3.– This latter observation is linked to a further argument that leads to ruling out the unreasonableness of the challenged rule.

It must be considered, in fact, that, barring particularly compelling reasons (Judgments No. 76 of 2026 and No. 211 of 2023), the retroactivity mechanism should not operate with respect to times so remote as to create abnormal fictitious seniorities, completely dissociated from the passing of the competition.

Consequently, the legislature not unreasonably excluded the operation of the retroactivity mechanism with respect to excessively remote vacancies, after having in any case ensured a framework suitable for preventing leapfrogging to the detriment of the winners of the three extraordinary competitions and having guaranteed them selection rules that are advantageous in various respects.

23.– The set of considerations made above allows, at the same time, to rule out that Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended, results in an unjustified discrimination between those who participated in the extraordinary competitions governed by the challenged rule and those who participated or will participate in normal internal competitions for the same rank.

The situations that the Council of State intended to equate are not, in fact, homogeneous and apply in different temporal segments.

23.1.– As regards the heterogeneity of the situations compared, it must be noted that the challenged rule refers to extraordinary internal competitions, with respect to which – unlike ordinary internal competitions – an anomalous situation of excessively remote vacancies pre-existed.

At the same time, the challenged rules established, unlike what is provided for those participating in normal internal competitions, notices characterized by advantageous conditions, ensuring: positions exceeding the establishment, qualifications-only selections, a guarantee of duty station, and an integral reservation of the positions put out to competition in favor of technical chief assistants.

23.2.– Furthermore, it must be considered that Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended, dictates transitional rules that are compared with provisions operating in different temporal contexts. In this regard, this Court is consistent in affirming that «differentiated treatment applied to the same factual scenarios, but at different times in time, does not in itself conflict with the principle of equality, since the passage of time can constitute a valid element of diversification of legal situations (Orders No. 25 of 2012, No. 224 of 2011, No. 61 of 2010, No. 170 of 2009, No. 212 and No. 77 of 2008)» (Judgments No. 41 of 2026 and No. 254 of 2014).

24.– The question raised with reference to Article 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution is also unfounded, as the challenged rule does not conflict with the principles of sound administration and impartiality of the Public Administration.

In reducing the establishment, the legislature in fact enhanced internal professional skills, but without granting retroactive mechanisms that would create *fictiones iuris* unreasonably dissociated from the conduct of competitions.

At the same time, it ensured the filling of previous staff vacancies, avoiding the risk of leapfrogging and compensating those to whom the retroactivity mechanism does not apply with benefits correlated to the type of selection permitted.

25.– From what has been highlighted above, it emerges that the challenged legislation does not violate Articles 3, first paragraph, and 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution, presenting issues that are not overlapping with those addressed by this Court in Judgments No. 75 of 2024 and No. 224 of 2020.

In these latter cases, the attribution to those promoted for merits of a legal seniority effective date calibrated on the occurrence of the extraordinary event entailed the risk of leapfrogging by the winners of ordinary competitions and had a negative reverberation on the sound administration of the public administration, creating a disincentive to the performance of actions suitable for allowing said promotion.

Conversely, in the matter subject to today's judgment, the carefully balanced choices made by the legislature to reconcile a plurality of complex needs, within the context of transitional rules and systematic restructuring, do not give rise to any risk of leapfrogging and prove to be non-unreasonable, non-discriminatory, and non-infringing upon the principles of sound administration and impartiality of the Public Administration.

In the absence of the alleged breaches (*vulnera*), the application to the factual scenario subject to these proceedings of either the retroactivity provided for by Article 20-quater, paragraph 7, of Presidential Decree No. 337 of 1982 or the mechanism that, in the alternative, the Council of State, in the various orders, variously deemed appropriate to extrapolate from Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017 is unjustified.

on those grounds

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

having joined the proceedings,

1) declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 May 2017 (Provisions concerning the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, on the reorganization of public administrations), as amended by Article 14, paragraph 1, letter n), of Legislative Decree No. 126 of 5 October 2018 (Supplementary and corrective provisions, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 6, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, to Legislative Decree No. 95 of 29 May 2017, bearing «Provisions concerning the revision of the roles of the Police Forces, pursuant to Article 8, paragraph 1, letter a, of Law No. 124 of 7 August 2015, on the reorganization of public administrations»), raised by the Council of State, Sixth Section, with reference to Article 3, first paragraph, of the Constitution, for inequality of treatment compared to deputy superintendents of the personnel performing police functions in the State Police, as well as with reference to Article 3, second paragraph, of the Constitution, by the orders indicated in the headnotes;

2) declares unfounded the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 2, paragraph 1, letter ll), of Legislative Decree No. 95 of 2017, as amended by Article 14, paragraph 1, letter n), of Legislative Decree No. 126 of 2018, raised by the Council of State, Sixth Section, with reference to Article 3, first paragraph, of the Constitution, for intrinsic unreasonableness and inequality of treatment compared to deputy superintendents who, within the framework of personnel performing technical-scientific or technical activities in the State Police, obtain promotion on the basis of ordinary internal competitions, as well as with reference to Article 97, second paragraph, of the Constitution, by the orders indicated in the headnotes.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on 24 June 2026.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on 21 July 2026

 

The anonymized version conforms in text to the original