INFJ Magistrature common mistakes
INFJ Magistrature · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a question asks about the termine for an impugnazione or for a procedural adempimento, the candidate counts the days from the notification or from the event itself, forgetting that the dies a quo is not counted and that the termine is computato according to the calendar rules (art. 155 c.p.c.), so a termine of 30 days notified on 3 March is written as expiring on 2 April instead of 3 April.
Most candidates memorize the length of the terms (30 days for appello, 60 for ricorso in Cassazione, 6 months for revocazione straordinaria) but never rehearse the counting mechanics. Under time pressure they apply the intuitive 'add the days' arithmetic they use in daily life, ignoring that the day of the event is excluded and that, if the expiry falls on a Saturday or a non-working day, the term is prorogato to the next working day (art. 155, comma 5, c.p.c.).
What to do instead
Before answering any term question, write the date of the event, mark it as excluded, count the days forward, then check whether the final day is a Saturday, Sunday or festive day and apply the proroga. Drill this with ten concrete dates across appello, ricorso and riassunzione until the counting becomes automatic.
On questions about the riparto di giurisdizione, the candidate assigns a dispute to the giudice ordinario or to the giudice amministrativo by looking only at the identity of the public body involved, rather than at the nature of the posizione giuridica soggettiva (diritto soggettivo versus interesse legittimo) and at the type of activity exercised by the administration.
The mental shortcut 'public body means administrative court' is learned early and never revised. Candidates also confuse the criterio della causa petendi with the criterio del petitum, and they overlook that the same public authority can act iure privato, generating ordinary jurisdiction, or that the giurisdizione esclusiva covers enumerated matters even where a diritto soggettivo is at stake.
What to do instead
For every riparto question, state in writing the posizione soggettiva claimed, the activity of the administration (autoritativa or di diritto privato), and the petitum. Then verify whether the matter falls within the giurisdizione esclusiva listed in the codice del processo amministrativo. Build a one-page decision tree and apply it to every practice question before checking the answer.
In criminal procedure questions, the candidate treats the nullità as always absolute and insanable, or conversely dismisses a defect as irrelevant, without checking whether the norm violated is prescribed a pena di nullità, whether the nullità is a regime intermedio, and whether it was sanata by the exercise of the facoltà or by the raggiungimento dello scopo.
The taxonomy of nullità (assolute, intermedie, relative) is studied as a list but not as a decision procedure. Candidates also forget that the nullità must be eccepita within the terms set by the codice and that many defects are sanati if the parte had the power to dedurli and did not, so they either overstate or understate the consequence of the defect.
What to do instead
For each nullità question, run a fixed checklist: is there a norma che commina la nullità; is it absolute (insanabile, rilevabile d'ufficio) or intermediate (eccepibile within the term and by the parties entitled); was there a sanatoria by raggiungimento dello scopo or by acquiescenza. Write the checklist out and apply it to the specific atto before selecting the answer.
On constitutional law questions about the sindacato di costituzionalità, the candidate declares a question inammissibile or fondata without distinguishing the vizio della norma from the vizio dell'atto, and without verifying the rilevanza in the giudizio a quo and the non-manifesta infondatezza before reaching the merits.
Candidates conflate the two filters (rilevanza and non-manifesta infondatezza) with the merits, and they forget that the Corte costituzionale cannot substitute its own discretion for that of the legislatore where the question involves scelte politiche. They also miss the distinction between illegittimità consequenziale and illegittimità derivata, and between norme costituzionali and norme interposte.
What to do instead
Structure every answer in three steps: first the ammissibilità (legittimazione del rimettente, rilevanza, non-manifesta infondatezza), then the parametro (which norma costituzionale or interposta), then the merito. Practice by writing the three headings and filling them in before choosing among the options, so the answer is not driven by the most plausible-sounding conclusion.
In EU law questions, the candidate applies the primato del diritto dell'Unione as if it automatically disapplied any conflicting national norm, including norms of constitutional rank, and forgets the distinction between direct effect of directives (only vertical, after the expiry of the term) and the obligation of interpretazione conforme.
The slogans 'primato' and 'effetto diretto' are memorized without the conditions. Candidates overlook that a directive cannot be invoked horizontally against a private party, that the control of constitutionality of norms conflicting with EU law follows the dualist path of the contro-limiti, and that the interpretazione conforme operates only within the limits of the national text.
What to do instead
For each EU law question, identify the source (Trattato, regolamento, direttiva, decisione), then ask whether the norm has effetto diretto and, if it is a directive, whether the dispute is vertical or horizontal and whether the term for transposition has expired. Only after this do you consider primato, disapplicazione or interpretazione conforme. Keep a table of the leading cases by issue.
On international law questions about the sources and about the responsibility of states, the candidate treats the consuetudine as a written rule and applies the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to a state that is not a party or to a treaty concluded before the Convention, and confuses the responsibility of the state with the responsibility of the individual.
The hierarchy of sources (ius cogens, consuetudine, trattato) is studied abstractly, so candidates do not test whether a rule is customary, whether a treaty rule has been codified as custom, and whether the VCLT applies ratione temporis. The dualism between state responsibility and individual criminal responsibility is also blurred because both appear in the same chapters.
What to do instead
For every international law question, first classify the source and its scope ratione personae and ratione temporis, then check whether the rule invoked is ius cogens, custom or treaty. Separate the plane of state responsibility (attribuzione, illecito, conseguenze) from that of individual responsibility. Write a short two-column note for each practice question.
In tax law questions, the candidate applies the sostituto d'imposta and the responsabile d'imposta as if they were the same figure, and answers questions on accertamento and riscossione without distinguishing the avviso di accertamento from the cartella di pagamento, the ruolo, and the atti della riscossione coattiva.
The figures of the tax code are learned as labels without the underlying obligation. Candidates also confuse the termini di decadenza and di prescrizione of the accertamento and of the riscossione, and they ignore that the riscossione coattiva follows the fase amministrativa of the ruolo and the affidamento al concessionario, with its own atti and its own remedies.
What to do instead
Build a map of the tax procedure: dichiarazione, accertamento, riscossione, contenzioso. For each figure (contribuente, sostituto, responsabile) write who owes what and to whom, and for each atto write who issues it, when, and what remedy it admits. Then answer the question by locating it on the map rather than by recalling a single article.
On labour law questions about licenziamento, the candidate applies the tutela reale or the tutela indennitaria without checking the size of the employer (the soglia dei 15 dipendenti), the date of the licenziamento, and the type of vizio (nullità, annullabilità, inefficacia), and confuses the regime of the tutele crescenti with the pre-existing art. 18 regime.
The discipline has been reformed repeatedly and candidates carry a single mental model from one reform. They do not anchor the answer to the applicable ratione temporis regime and to the dimension of the impresa, which determine whether reintegrazione, indennità or only risarcimento applies.
What to do instead
For each licenziamento question, first fix three coordinates: date of the licenziamento, size of the employer, and type of vizio alleged. Then select the regime (art. 18 as modified, tutele crescenti, or the discipline for small employers) and only then the remedy. Keep a dated timeline of the reforms and consult it for every question.
In commercial and insolvency law questions, the candidate answers on the procedure of fallimento or concordato without distinguishing the presupposti (qualità di imprenditore commerciale, superamento delle soglie, stato di insolvenza) from the effects, and applies the disciplina of one procedure to another, for example the effetti del fallimento to the liquidazione giudiziale or the concordato preventivo.
The riforma of the insolvency discipline introduced a new terminology and new procedures, and candidates study the old and new regimes side by side without a clear map. They also forget that the presupposti soggettivi and oggettivi must both be checked before any effect can be discussed.
What to do instead
For each insolvency question, write the presupposti first (who, which thresholds, which state), then the procedure, then the effects. Maintain a comparison table of fallimento, liquidazione giudiziale, concordato preventivo and accordi di ristrutturazione with their presupposti and effects, and update it with the ratione temporis application of the new codice.
Across all domains, the candidate answers the question as written in the abstract, without identifying the specific norm, the comma, or the ratione temporis regime, and then cannot distinguish between two plausible options because both sound correct in general terms.
The preparation is based on manuali and riassunti read passively, so the candidate recognizes the topic but not the operative detail. Under exam pressure the recognition of the topic produces a feeling of familiarity that substitutes for the verification of the norm, and the answer is chosen by plausibility rather than by reference to the text.
What to do instead
Adopt a norm-first method: for every practice question, before looking at the options, write the article and comma you believe governs and the date of the facts. Then read the options and eliminate those inconsistent with the norm. Review errors by re-reading the article, not the summary, and keep an error log organized by domain and by article.