Italy is set to vote on a contentious judicial reform referendum on March 22–23, a move that could significantly reshape the country’s legal framework and alter the balance of power within its justice system. The reform, backed by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, aims to restructure the governance of magistrates, but legal experts warn it may unintentionally expand the authority of public prosecutors rather than limit it.
At the core of the proposal is a structural overhaul of judicial governance bodies, including the High Council of the Judiciary, which oversees appointments, promotions, and disciplinary actions. The reform introduces a formal separation between judges and prosecutors—two roles that have historically operated within a unified judicial system under Italy’s post-war constitutional framework.
From a legal standpoint, this separation marks a significant policy shift. Italy’s current system grants a high degree of autonomy to magistrates, particularly public prosecutors, who have wide discretion in initiating and managing investigations. This autonomy has long been a subject of debate, especially in light of concerns over accountability and procedural delays.
Government officials argue that the reform is necessary to address inefficiencies and restore public trust in the judiciary. Data cited in open-source institutional discussions indicate that between 2013 and 2023, over 643,000 criminal cases expired during the investigative phase without reaching trial, highlighting systemic challenges in case management and prosecutorial prioritisation.
However, legal analysts caution that the proposed changes could create unintended consequences. Under the new framework, prosecutors would gain greater control over internal appointments within prosecution offices, potentially reducing existing checks and balances. Currently, such decisions involve negotiation with judges, which many experts consider an important constraint on prosecutorial authority.
The reform also introduces changes to disciplinary mechanisms, including the use of random selection (sortition) for members of oversight bodies. While intended to enhance impartiality, similar mechanisms in other sectors have faced criticism for lacking transparency and accountability, raising questions about their effectiveness in judicial governance.
The policy debate is further shaped by Italy’s historical context. The reform’s roots can be traced to the Mani Pulite investigations of the early 1990s, which exposed widespread political corruption and led to the collapse of established political parties. Since then, tensions between political institutions and the judiciary have remained a defining feature of Italy’s governance landscape.
The current government has also implemented a series of legal measures aimed at limiting investigative powers, including restrictions on wiretapping and the decriminalisation of certain offences such as abuse of office. These steps form part of a broader policy approach to recalibrate the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.
Critics, however, argue that the referendum could weaken judicial independence while failing to address underlying inefficiencies. Concerns have also been raised about potential pressure on judges, as prosecutors may gain the ability to initiate investigations against them in a more segmented system.
Public confidence in the judiciary has declined in recent decades, with trust levels reportedly falling from around 70% in the 1990s to approximately 45% in recent years. Policymakers see reform as an opportunity to address this erosion, but the effectiveness of the proposed changes remains contested.
As Italy prepares for the vote, the referendum is being closely watched as a test of legal reform and institutional balance. While it aims to resolve longstanding governance issues within the judiciary, experts suggest it may instead redefine the dynamics of power, leaving the fundamental tension between political authority and judicial independence unresolved.