Italy's Justice Reform: Faster Courts Target 2026

The Italy Ministry of Justice is preparing to convene formal negotiations among magistrates, lawyers, and government officials on judicial reforms, a strategic pivot following the March 2026 constitutional referendum defeat that has left the country's justice system at a crossroads.

Why This Matters

• Timeline: Deputy Justice Minister Francesco Paolo Sisto confirmed talks will begin "immediately," with less than 12 months left in the current legislative term to pass meaningful changes.

• Strategy Shift: The government is abandoning sweeping constitutional overhauls in favor of "surgical interventions" targeting criminal and civil procedure bottlenecks.

• Institutional Reset: After months of bitter campaigning, Italy's judicial establishment and political leadership are attempting their first collaborative dialogue since the referendum.

From Constitutional Battle to Negotiating Table

The announcement came during a post-referendum conference titled "What Justice After the Referendum?" where Sisto appeared alongside Giuseppe Tango, the newly elected president of the National Association of Magistrates (ANM). The symbolic joint appearance marks a dramatic tonal shift after the March 22-23 referendum, which rejected Justice Minister Carlo Nordio's constitutional reform package by 53.7% to 46.3%, with turnout reaching 58.9%.

The defeated reform would have constitutionally separated the career paths of judges and prosecutors, divided the High Council of the Judiciary (CSM) into two distinct bodies, introduced sortition (random selection by lottery) for selecting council members, and established a new High Disciplinary Court for magistrate oversight. These proposals, approved by Parliament in October 2025, were championed by the Meloni government as essential to judicial impartiality but drew fierce opposition from most magistrate associations, who warned of political interference.

Now, with that constitutional path blocked, Sisto is outlining a more modest roadmap. "The next step can only be a convocation at the ministry to put each side's proposals on the table," he declared. While Nordio will formally set the schedule, Sisto emphasized urgency: "I believe it is necessary to start immediately, and I am convinced the minister will not disagree."

What This Means for Residents

For anyone living in Italy—whether navigating a civil lawsuit, awaiting criminal trial, or dealing with administrative bureaucracy—the shift from constitutional confrontation to practical reform could translate into tangible improvements in case processing times and court accessibility, though the scope will be narrower than originally promised.

The government remains bound by National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR) deadlines requiring a 25% reduction in criminal case duration and a 40% cut in civil and commercial litigation timelines by June 2026, measured against 2019 baselines. Italy must also slash the backlog of first-instance civil cases by 90%. Meeting these EU-mandated targets without constitutional reform will require consensus on procedural tweaks, digital infrastructure upgrades, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

In practical terms, the forthcoming negotiations may yield changes such as expanded single-judge authority in civil matters, streamlined appeal filters, enhanced mediation and arbitration frameworks, and accelerated digitalization of court filings. The criminal side could see adjustments to pretrial detention rules, evidence presentation protocols, and sentencing guidelines—issues that do not require constitutional amendment but depend on legislative consensus.

A Government Recalibrating Its Ambitions

Sisto explicitly ruled out "reckless reforms that miss the target because you have to rush and it doesn't work out." Instead, he advocated for "small surgical interventions by sector" rather than comprehensive overhauls, a pragmatic acknowledgment of political realities with only one year remaining before the end of the legislative session.

"We were all engaged in this referendum, and yes, we had attitudes that were competitively important, but the hope now is that we must all be willing to take steps forward by taking some steps back," Sisto said, signaling a willingness to compromise on both sides.

The deputy minister emphasized that the Ministry's restructured cabinet will serve as the coordination point among the political, judicial, and legal professions. He highlighted the appointment of Nicola Selvaggi as the first lay (non-magistrate) head of the legislative office, a symbolic break from tradition intended to signal openness. Technical experts, including magistrate Mura, described by Sisto as "brilliant, balanced, capable of holding this type of conversation," will facilitate the dialogue.

Magistrates and Lawyers Signal Readiness

The openness from the ANM and the National Forensic Council (CNF), led by President Francesco Greco, represents a notable thaw. Throughout the referendum campaign, magistrate unions portrayed the Nordio reform as a threat to judicial independence, while government allies accused judges of protecting guild privileges. The 53% "No" vote vindicated the magistrates' position but also left both camps recognizing that Italy's justice system remains among Europe's slowest and most inefficient.

Tango and Greco have publicly acknowledged "common values between magistrates and lawyers" and called for setting aside the polarized rhetoric of the referendum. National Anti-Mafia Prosecutor Giovanni Melillo urged replacing "suspicion and distrust" with "attention and respect" to enable constructive dialogue.

The Radicali and the Limits of Constitutional Change

The Radical Party, which campaigned for "Yes" in the referendum, argued that career separation was necessary to ensure impartial judges, even while conceding the reform would not directly shorten trial lengths. They rejected fears that lay CSM members would enable political control, noting magistrates would retain majority representation and sortition would prevent partisan carve-ups. The defeat underscores the difficulty of constitutional reform in a system where referendums require both majority approval and, in some cases, high turnout thresholds.

Legal Framework and Parliamentary Sovereignty

Sisto was careful to reaffirm parliamentary supremacy in the reform process. "Article 101 says Parliament writes the laws, the magistracy applies them. The referendum cannot erase constitutional norms; it reinforces them," he stated, framing the negotiations as consultative rather than co-legislative. This distinction matters for Italy's separation of powers doctrine, which reserves lawmaking authority to elected bodies.

The upcoming ministry talks will test whether the post-referendum détente can produce legislative consensus on issues ranging from criminal procedure timelines to civil case management, digital court systems, and disciplinary mechanisms for judges—all areas where technical fixes could yield measurable gains without touching constitutional architecture.

Outlook: Incremental Progress or Missed Opportunity?

With the constitutional reform blocked and the legislative clock ticking, the Italy Ministry of Justice faces a narrow window to demonstrate that dialogue can deliver what confrontation could not. For expatriates, legal professionals, businesses, and ordinary citizens entangled in Italy's notoriously slow courts, the success of these negotiations will determine whether the next 12 months bring relief—or another cycle of promises without results.

The ministry has reorganized its internal structure, elevated lay leadership in legislative drafting, and committed to immediate talks. Whether this machinery can produce actionable reforms that accelerate case resolution, expand alternative dispute mechanisms, and modernize court technology remains the defining question for Italy's justice system in 2026.