February 16 2026

Maintenance allowance: Supreme Court ruling on economic imbalance and career sacrifices

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.

In Ordinance No. 2917 of February 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation has further defined the scope of the "compensatory-equalizing" function of divorce alimony. The ruling clarifies that the granting of financial support cannot be based on hypothetical projections or future pension losses; instead, it requires the verification of a current, actual economic imbalance between the former spouses resulting from proven professional sacrifices.

Case Overview and Legal Context

The case originated from a decision by the Rome Court of Appeal which, partially overturning a first-instance judgment, awarded an ex-wife a monthly divorce alimony of €200.00. Although the lower court had established that the applicant possessed adequate financial resources, the award was justified on the basis of alleged "contributory damage."

According to the appellate judges, the woman had interrupted her career for a brief period (1995-1999) to care for young children and, in the following decade, had engaged in informal employment (lavoro in nero). The court argued that these circumstances would lead to a future pension imbalance compared to her former husband. The appellant challenged this decision, contesting the lack of a real comparative assessment of incomes and the failure to specify the professional sacrifices actually made.

The Compensatory-Equalizing Function of Alimony

The Supreme Court upheld the appeal, reiterating that divorce alimony is not a tool designed to guarantee the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. Its nature is composite: it serves a welfare purpose (assistenziale) and, more importantly, a compensatory-equalizing purpose (perequativo-compensativa).

This latter aspect presupposes that the economically weaker spouse sacrificed concrete opportunities for professional growth to dedicate themselves to the family. Such a choice, even if mutually agreed upon by the spouses, must have produced an economic-patrimonial imbalance that is causally linked to the contribution provided to the formation of the common assets or the assets of the other spouse.

Legal Principle: Rejecting Hypothetical Valuations

The core of the decision lies in the critique of the appellate judge's "hypothetical" reasoning. The Supreme Court highlighted a contradiction: while the lower court acknowledged the adequacy of the applicant's means, it nevertheless granted alimony based on a future projection of a pension gap.

The legal principle expressed in Ordinance No. 2917/2026 establishes that:

The assessment of the inadequacy of the applicant's means and the objective impossibility of obtaining them constitutes the essential precondition for awarding alimony.
The economic imbalance between the former spouses must be current and actual. It cannot be based on hypothetical projections which, while potentially justifying a future review of the alimony, are not sufficient to establish a right to the benefit today.
The burden of proof regarding the sacrifice of "realistic professional and income opportunities" rests entirely with the applicant and cannot be replaced by generic statements regarding family support.

Operational Implications and the Burden of Proof

The ruling underscores a heightened standard of proof. It is no longer sufficient to demonstrate having cared for the family; the claimant must prove specifically which career opportunities were forfeited and how these losses have impacted their current financial standing.

Furthermore, "contributory damage" arising from informal employment cannot be automatically transferred to the former spouse in the form of divorce alimony—especially if such a condition is not directly attributable to choices necessitated by family requirements, but rather to independent professional conduct. Consequently, the Supreme Court has remanded the case to the Rome Court of Appeal for a new examination based on these strict parameters of currency and causal link.

Unsuitable premises and the right to refuse work: legal protections against retaliatory dismissal

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.

Read

February 19 2026

Disciplinary dismissal: reinstatement for legally irrelevant conduct

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).

Read

February 17 2026

Higher Duties and Job Classification: Supreme Court Ruling 1212/2026

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.

Read