DIM Magistratura common mistakes
DIM Magistratura · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering a civil-law question by reciting the article number and general principle without applying it to the concrete facts, then declaring the solution obvious.
Written preparation for the civil exam rewards mnemonic recall of Codice civile structure; candidates rehearse article numbers and forget that the concorso asks for the qualification of a specific fact pattern, so they stop at the norm instead of subsuming the case.
What to do instead
For every civil answer, force a three-step structure: (1) identify the facts and the question of law, (2) state the governing norm and its ratio, (3) apply it to those facts and state the conclusion, including the opposing thesis and why it fails. Practise on past concorso traces with a timer, writing the application paragraph first and only then the norm.
Treating possesso and detenzione as interchangeable and resolving a spoglio or usucapione question without checking the animus and the title under which the holder occupies.
The two concepts are studied together and share the same factual vocabulary; under time pressure candidates match the word 'possesso' in the trace to the possessory remedies without verifying whether the occupant held for himself or for another.
What to do instead
Before answering, write one line: who holds the thing, under what title, and with what animus. Then run the check: detenzione plus title normally excludes usucapione and spoglio; possession in bad faith still counts for the one-year reintegrazione. Build a one-page decision tree and apply it to five fact patterns before the exam.
Drafting a penal answer that names the offence and the article but never argues the subjective element (dolo, colpa, preterintenzione) or the causal link, even when the trace turns on them.
Candidates memorise the elements of offences as a list and, in the oral or written answer, stop after the objective elements because that is the order of the code; the mental element feels like an add-on rather than the decisive filter for the specific case.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed checklist for every penal question: conduct, event, causal link (with the counterfactual test and the intervening-cause analysis), objective imputation, subjective element, grounds of justification, culpability, punishability. Write the checklist at the top of the answer sheet and tick each item explicitly in the text.
Confusing the roles of the various legal actors in a criminal proceeding (public prosecutor, giudice per le indagini preliminari, giudice dell'udienza preliminare, tribunale in composizione collegiale or monocratica) when the trace asks who adopts a given measure.
Procedural competence is learned as a table of articles and the abbreviations blur under exam pressure; candidates answer from the label rather than from the function that the measure performs in the sequence of the proceeding.
What to do instead
Rebuild the proceeding as a timeline on one sheet: investigation, preliminary hearing, trial, appeal, cassation, with the competent organ and the type of measure at each stage. Then, for each measure (custodia cautelare, archiviazione, rinvio a giudizio, decreto penale), state organ, initiative and remedy. Test yourself by covering the organ column and reciting it.
Answering an administrative-law question by asserting that the administration 'may' or 'must' act without identifying the type of power (vincolato, discrezionale, discrezionalità tecnica) and the limits on it.
The general part of administrative law is taught through broad principles, and candidates reproduce the principle of legality and the interessi legittimi without classifying the power, which is what determines the intensity of judicial review and the outcome.
What to do instead
For every administrative question, first classify the power and the situation: norm, act, procedure, interested party, legitimate interest or subjective right. Then state which limits apply (competence, procedure, motivation, proportionality, reasonableness) and which remedy follows (annullamento, nullità, risarcimento, ottemperanza). Practise on hypothetical measures and write the classification before the merits.
Treating annullabilità and nullità of an administrative act as two degrees of the same defect, so that a trace about incompetence or absence of motivation is answered with the wrong regime of remedies and time limits.
Both are 'vices of the act' and are studied in the same chapter; candidates remember that nullità is 'more serious' but cannot recall which defects produce which, and the 60-day term for annullamento dominates their attention.
What to do instead
Memorise the closed list of nullità grounds (incompetenza assoluta, violazione o elusione del giudicato, and the cases the law expressly provides) against the residual category of annullabilità (incompetenza relativa, eccesso di potere, violazione di legge). For each, note who may invoke it, the term and the effects. Apply the list to ten short fact patterns.
Analysing a constitutional-legitimacy question only on the merits of the challenged statute, skipping the preliminary filters (legittimazione del rimettente, rilevanza, non manifesta infondatezza) and the type of judgment requested.
Candidates focus on the substantive hierarchy of sources, which is the most studied part, and treat the procedural gateway as a formality; the trace usually rewards exactly that gateway reasoning.
What to do instead
Structure every constitutional answer as: (1) who may raise the question and in what proceeding, (2) rilevanza in the concrete case, (3) non manifesta infondatezza, (4) the parameter invoked and its correct reading, (5) the type of decision the Court could adopt (accoglimento, rigetto, interpretativa, manipolativa) and its effects. Write the five headings and fill them.
Resolving a conflict between sources by ranking them in the abstract, without checking the criterion of competence and the material scope reserved to a given source.
The hierarchy of sources is the first thing taught and becomes the default answer; candidates then force every conflict into hierarchy and overlook reserved matters and the principle of competence, which often decides the case.
What to do instead
Before ranking, ask three questions: is there a reserve of law or of another source, is the conflict about the same matter or about competence, and does the later norm prevail only within its competence. Build a grid of sources (Costituzione, leggi costituzionali, legge ordinaria, atti aventi forza di legge, regolamenti, fonti europee) with the applicable criterion for each pair.
Writing answers with no visible reasoning structure: long paragraphs of doctrine, no statement of the question, no conclusion, so the examiner cannot locate the candidate's solution.
University preparation rewards discursive essays, and candidates carry that style into a concorso where the examiner reads hundreds of scripts quickly and scores the presence of a clear solution and its justification.
What to do instead
Adopt a visible skeleton for every answer: question of law, norm, application, counter-argument, conclusion, in separate paragraphs with short headings. Practise writing answers under time with the conclusion stated in the first and last paragraph, and have someone mark only for structure before checking content.
Spending disproportionate time on one question and leaving the last question of the paper answered in outline or not at all.
Candidates prepare by depth of single topics and underestimate the arithmetic of the written exam, where each question carries comparable weight and a partial answer on the last one costs more than a slightly thinner answer on the first.
What to do instead
Before writing, allocate minutes per question and per section, and keep a reserve for the final question. Train with full simulations under real timing, tracking minutes per question, and practise the discipline of stopping a question at its time limit even when it feels incomplete.