Laws of Public competitions Identified by law and individual notices which from time to time specify in detail the requirements for participation, the subjects to be studied, the test taking process and the methods of application.
In the event of a court dispute, it is not usually the individual notice rules that are contested, but rather the concrete methods of carrying out the election. But this is not always the case. In a recent case that came to attention Constitutional Courtthe rules of public competition that emerge from a Gender discrimination In relation to participant identification criteria. Based on this there are some legislative orders which are not respected The principle of equality between the sexes.
Competition that culminated in a consulta aimed at recruitment. Inspectors of Penitentiary Policebut Sentence number 181 This year’s – on closer inspection – is useful for illustrating the plethora of possible similar cases.
Let’s take a closer look at what happened and the reason for the council’s decision.
History, contested rules and the role of the Council of State
According to the order, State Council decided to request the intervention of the Constitutional Court, as it found itself unable to deal with statutory rules Principles of equity and reasonableness It is written in the constitution.
At the same time, according to the highest authority of administrative justice, these laws are conflicting. Principle of equal treatment between men and women Provided by EU law.
Hence in sentence no. 181 clearly states:
And Decision on constitutional validity Promoted by the Council of State in opinion on an extraordinary appeal to the President of the Republic.
The Council’s intervention was in fact done in the context of the action, which had been brought by some earlier against the Ministry of Justice. Access criteria For Public Competition for Penal Police Inspectors.
In particular, the paranormal appeal was suggested by some. Assistants to the Penitentiary Police Force Against the approval of Final classification Of Internal competition 606 places of initial qualification Masculinity of penitentiary police inspectors.
The State Council questioned the constitutional validity:
- 44, paragraphs 7 to 11, of art d lgs n. 95 Deal 2017 About the Role of Police Forces and Reorganization of Public Administration and Related Table 37
- Attached to Table A d LGS n. 443 Del. 1992which includes the organization of staff of the Penitentiary Police Force.
The rules applied to the competition will be violated. Articles 3 and 117 of the Constitution:
In the section where to distinguishWith organic dedication, According to gender differencesPosts offered for competition in preliminary qualification of Inspectors of Penitentiary Police Corps.
For these reasons, followed the decision of the judges in Piazza del Quirinale, who are not new to solving social problems related to work, as shown by the recent decision on family business, but to social security. too
Violations confirmed by the Constitutional Court
The council considered. Acceptable The question of constitutional legitimacy State Counciland then proceeded with the substantive test to determine whether the contested rules were actually unconstitutional.
And, affirming what the administrative judge hypothesized, the court established that the statutory rules that provide for a Gender discrimination In Competences of Competence of Inspector of Penitentiary Police Force They are constitutionally invalid.
In fact, the need for a gender gap to access the inspector’s qualifications will not be justified – we read in this sentence – by:
Functions are actually and primarily used to carry out general tasks assigned as a result of bankruptcy proceedings.
With sentence no. 181, the judges then declared. Constitutionally illegal The rules of the above two legislative decrees, as they conflict with the Constitution (Articles 3 and 117) and sources of EU law. These provisions were in fact designed to favor – unjustifiably – male candidates, without respecting the principle of gender equality.
Role and Duties of Penitentiary Police Inspectors
Il Differential treatment The characterization of the inspectors’ role finds no real justification and is therefore not aimed at any objective that would justify the principle. In fact:
Direct and continuous contact with inmates does not render the work performed competent and imprecise.
L’Inspector of Penitentiary Police He is a key figure, ranging from operational management to supervision and coordination of activities in prisons and training of the institution’s staff. But this figure doesn’t have a key function, so far Relations with prisoners.
Women’s right to equal treatment in competition
In sum, for the Court the distinction between men and women in characterizing the role of inspectors has no reasonable justification and is not aimed at a legitimate objective – such as maintaining the functionality and efficiency of the Corps – thus militating against it. There is a violation. Constitutional principle of proportionality and equality between the sexes.
So this one Privilege viola:
The right of women, with equal requirements, to participate in activities according to their abilities and choices; Development of society.
In fact, the system in question is the opposite. Merit crisisExcluding the useful position in the hierarchy:
Even women who have received one High ratingSimply because men are more consistently represented in the workforce and positions available for competition.
An unequal treatment which not only harms the individual candidate but also affects the performance of the administration. This is the reason whyThe meritocratic approach e:
After removing any unreasonable disparity in treatment, the differences will be determined. Score Which every candidate gets from time to time and not through any random procedure, conditional A more pronounced male presence.
What changes?
With this important command, Constitutional Court Reiterated the importance of ensuring equal treatment between men and women in the rules of conduct of events. Public competitions (indeed with less appeal today than in the past), preventing any potential gender discrimination and promoting substantial equality in access to jobs in PA.
The decision has a general scope, strengthens legal certainty and promotes a meritocracy in the selection of personnel, which should be followed – where possible – taking into account actual preparation and competence, men or women. Regardless of the woman’s gender.
