Newsroom

In Ordinance No. 3146/2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation clarifies that disciplinary dismissal is only lawful in cases of "notable breach." The Court emphasizes that "just cause" is an elastic concept requiring a case-by-case analysis of proportionality, taking into account the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) and the specific context of the employee's conduct.

The Supreme Court of Cassation, with ordinance no. 3145 of February 12, 2026, has upheld the nullity of a dismissal issued to an employee who refused to work in premises that were unsuitable and hazardous to health. The ruling clarifies that refusing to perform professional duties constitutes a legitimate exercise of the "exception of non-performance" (Art. 1460 c.c.) when the employer breaches their fundamental safety obligations under Art. 2087 of the Civil Code. Regarding the burden of proof, the Court established that while the worker must only allege the existence of a risk, the employer must demonstrate the actual suitability of the work environment. This decision reinforces protections against retaliatory termination by identifying dismissals based on absences provoked by the employer's own failure to provide safe working conditions as null and void.

The Court of Modena, with ruling no. 56 of January 9, 2026, addressed the issue of disciplinary dismissal under the "increasing protections" regime (Jobs Act), establishing a pivotal principle for employee protection. The judgment clarifies that reinstatement protection (tutela reintegratoria) applies not only when the alleged misconduct did not historically occur, but also when the contested fact lacks any disciplinary relevance. In this specific case, informal communications with clients, not barred by explicit company directives, were found insufficient to support a dismissal for cause. The judge identified a substantive defect, affirming that the absence of severity and the lack of proportionality between the sanction and the charge lead to the annulment of the dismissal and the restoration of the employment relationship. This decision underscores that the "non-existence of the material fact" must be interpreted in a legal sense, ensuring reinstatement whenever the conduct is harmless or falls outside the disciplinary scope defined by the National Collective Labor Agreement (CCNL).

The Supreme Court, with Ordinance No. 1212 of January 20, 2026, has reaffirmed the strict methodological requirements for recognizing higher duties and the corresponding salary differentials. The Court clarified that trial judges cannot rely solely on witness testimony but must apply the "three-phase procedure." This process requires a factual assessment of the duties performed, an analysis of the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) classifications, and a precise comparison between the two. The ruling emphasizes that the absence of such a comparative analysis results in a failure to prove the right to a higher job classification, leading to the appeal being upheld in favor of the employer. This principle serves as a key benchmark for managing litigation regarding professional grading and reclassification.

In Ordinance No. 2917 of February 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation overturned a decision that granted divorce alimony based solely on hypothetical projections of future pension imbalances. The Court reaffirmed that alimony requires proof of the applicant's current inadequacy of means and an objective inability to provide for themselves at the time of the claim. Any economic imbalance between former spouses must be an actual factual precondition, stemming from documented professional sacrifices rather than generic presumptions related to informal work or brief career interruptions. This ruling strengthens the burden of proof on the claimant, who must demonstrate the waiver of realistic income opportunities in favor of family needs.

By way of Judgment No. 29961 of October 27, 2023, the Court of Cassation has recognized the right of temporary teachers (precari)—specifically those with annual substitute contracts or contracts valid until the end of teaching activities—to access the Teacher’s Electronic Card.

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in Order No. 1226 of January 20, 2026, has confirmed the full validity of non-compete clauses in agency contracts, even in the absence of a specific indemnity. According to the Supreme Court, the indemnity provision in Article 1751-bis of the Civil Code is not enforced by a sanction of nullity and is therefore considered derogable by the parties' autonomy. The decision emphasizes that the professional sacrifice required of the agent may be justified by the overall economic balance of the agency relationship rather than a single monetary consideration. This ruling stabilizes judicial orientation in favor of contractual freedom for businesses, while leaving room for reflection on the legal stability of agreements that are excessively burdensome for professionals without compensation.

In judgment no. 1952 of January 29, 2026, the Joint Sections of the Supreme Court addressed the sensitive issue of jurisdiction concerning the COVID-19 pandemic and the alleged mismanagement and organizational failures of the National Health Service (SSN). The Supreme Court ruled that claims for damages brought by the families of 'COVID victims' against the Public Administration fall under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Courts. This principle clarifies that the judicial review of Public Administration liability pertains to the exercise of discretionary public power, even when assessed against the standards of good faith. As a result of this ruling, proceedings already initiated before Civil Courts must be resumed (riassunti) before the competent Regional Administrative Court (TAR), establishing a clear demarcation of judicial competence in disputes arising from emergency healthcare management.

With judgment no. 9428 of 9 December 2025, the Court of Milan upheld the claim of a real estate brokerage firm, recognizing the right to a commission even where the sale was stipulated after the expiration of the mandate and with the intervention of a different intermediary. The ruling rigorously applies the principle of adequate causality pursuant to Art. 1755 of the Italian Civil Code, establishing that the right to compensation arises when the broker’s activity—even if limited to making contact or providing essential information—constitutes the indispensable antecedent for the conclusion of the deal. The Judge held that the execution of the deed of sale shortly after the mandate's expiration, and under the same economic conditions, proved the continuity of the causal link, ordering the seller to pay the full agreed fees.