June 25 2026

Clients diverted to competitors: when an employee must compensate the employer

Through Ordinance No. 16300 of May 26, 2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation precisely outlines the boundaries of an employee's duty of loyalty. The Court clarifies that diverting clients while the employment relationship is still active constitutes an independent breach of contract, making it unnecessary for employers to prove elements of unfair competition to claim damages.

The case and the regulatory context

The dispute under review stems from the resignation without notice of a physician who served as the technical director of a healthcare facility's dialysis department. The employing company, which subsequently entered bankruptcy proceedings, initiated an action for damages against the professional. The company complained about the depletion of the department, which saw its patient count drop from approximately eighty to about ten immediately following the employee's departure. The Court of Appeal established that the worker, in the days preceding his resignation, contacted patients to direct them toward a competing healthcare facility. The same decision, however, excluded the liability of two other doctors involved, as they were merely independent contractors not subject to an employment relationship of subordination.

The legal issue examined

The core issue concerns the extension of contractual duties typical of subordinate employment compared to independent collaborations. The appellant challenged the order to pay damages, raising two primary objections. On one hand, he highlighted the absence of conduct constituting unfair competition under the Civil Code. On the other hand, he emphasized the healthcare facility's failure to pay his remuneration for over six months. The Supreme Court therefore had to clarify whether an employer's failure to pay wages suspends the effectiveness of the duties of loyalty and whether corporate protection necessarily requires proof of typical anti-competitive conduct.

The court's decision and the ratio decidendi

Through the ruling in the file cass-civ-sez-lavoro-ord-data-ud-09-04-2026-26-05-2-2.pdf (Ordinance No. 16300 of May 26, 2026), the Labour Section of the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the doctor's appeal, confirming the penalty framework. The ratio decidendi is based on the autonomy of the duty of loyalty provided for by Article 2105 of the Italian Civil Code. The panel specified that this duty requires the employee to refrain from conduct contrary to the employer's interests. This obligation does not coincide with the prohibition of unfair competition regulated by Articles 2598 et seq., which governs objective relations between competing businesses.

Case law interpretation extends the scope of Article 2105 of the Civil Code by integrating it with the general principles of contractual fairness and good faith. Consequently, the predetermination of patient diversion carried out prior to resignation directly harms company assets. The judges established that the conduct is relevant even for its mere potential to cause harm. Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected the defense argument based on payment delays: the employer's non-performance does not authorize the employee to violate the duty of loyalty as long as the contract remains formally in force.

Validity of Dismissal via E-mail: The Italian Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court of Cassation, Employment Section, with Ordinance No. 13731 of May 11, 2026, confirmed the validity of employment termination notified via standard email. The ruling clarifies that this method of communication constitutes a lawful dismissal, as it is fully capable of satisfying the written form requirement under Art. 2 of Law 604/1966. For the act to be effective, the employer must solely provide objective proof that the message was received by the recipient. The decision adapts labor law practices to contemporary corporate dynamics, reiterating that digital channels are valid and binding, with significant operational implications for the entire corporate organization.

Read

May 1 2026

Vaccine compensation: The Supreme Court of Cassation clarifies the causal link

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in ruling no. 10741 of April 23, 2026, has clarified the evidentiary standards for vaccine compensation under Law 210/1992. The Court established that the causal link between the vaccine and the onset of a permanent pathology does not require absolute scientific certainty, but rather satisfies the civil standard of "more likely than not." By emphasizing temporal proximity and the absence of alternative causes (differential diagnosis), the ruling protects the rights of injured parties even in the absence of broad epidemiological consensus. This decision provides a vital precedent, shifting the focus from abstract statistics to individual clinical history, thereby ensuring effective protection of health rights within the framework of public vaccination programs.

Read

April 19 2026

Medical liability and filler treatments: the Florence Court of Appeal on insurance indemnity

The Court of Appeal of Florence, with ruling no. 1099 of 10 June 2025, has provided significant clarifications on medical liability and insurance indemnity obligations regarding filler-related damages. The decision establishes that insurers must hold the healthcare professional harmless not only for the compensation due to the patient (net of the deductible) but also for the legal costs awarded to the claimant. A central point of the ruling concerns the distinction between these burdens and defense costs under Art. 1917, paragraph 3, of the Italian Civil Code, confirming the physician's right to reimbursement for legal defense expenses. This judgment serves as a key reference for the aesthetic medicine sector, reaffirming that insurance protection must fully cover the procedural consequences of a claim to ensure the professional's financial security.

Read