Responsible research assessment (RRA) reforms, advanced through initiatives such as CoARA and the HR Excellence in Research label, are typically framed as matters of institutional design and scholarly culture. This paper argues that RRA also operates within distinct national legal frameworks that shape how recruitment disputes are resolved and how the boundaries of merit are negotiated in practice. The study adopts a comparative mixed-methods case-study design, combining descriptive quantitative mapping with qualitative legal analysis of Italy and Finland, two civil-law countries with markedly different levels of university autonomy and engagement with RRA initiatives. For Italy, the quantitative analysis draws on a 2023 observatory of administrative case law on university recruitment, while the qualitative component examines specific labour court decisions concerning career progression within the National Research Council (CNR). For Finland, the analysis is based on specific statements issued by the Equality Ombudsman and the Parliamentary Ombudsman concerning university recruitment. By analysing specific concrete cases, the study identifies recurring legal fault lines, such as disputes over evaluation criteria, committee composition and procedural transparency and compares how courts (Italy) and ombudsman institutions (Finland) review the legality of academic recruitment and promotion decisions. The findings show that, despite very different oversight architectures, judicial and quasi-judicial actors in both countries converge on the practical outcome of avoiding direct review of scientific merit, albeit for different reasons, self-restraint by courts with full jurisdiction in Italy, and the ombudsman's structurally limited mandate in Finland.