Analysis and Implications of Constitutional Court Ruling No. 111/2025, Which Also Introduces a New Factual Variable in Dismissal Litigation: the Employee’s Psycho-Physical Health Status
With ruling No. 111/2025, filed on 18 July 2025, the Constitutional Court delivered a significant decision in labor law, declaring the partial constitutional illegitimacy of Article 6, first paragraph, of Law No. 604 of 15 July 1966. The Court found unconstitutional the provision to the extent that it does not allow a worker who is in a state of incapacity of mind at the time of receiving the dismissal notice—or during the 60-day period for extrajudicial challenge—to be exempted from the obligation of prior extrajudicial contestation and to instead challenge the dismissal directly through judicial proceedings (or by requesting conciliation or arbitration) within 240 days from the communication of the dismissal.
The Regulatory Framework and Established Jurisprudential Orientation
To understand the scope of the Constitutional Court’s ruling, it is necessary to outline the regulatory and jurisprudential context in which it is situated.
The core of the legislation is found in Article 6 of Law No. 604 of 15 July 1966. In its current form—shaped by amendments first introduced by Article 32 of Law No. 183/2010 and later by Article 1, paragraph 38, of Law No. 92/2012—the provision structures dismissal challenges as a progressive process, marked by two temporal thresholds:
First Term (Extrajudicial Challenge): The employee must contest the dismissal “under penalty of forfeiture within sixty days of receiving written notice”. The challenge may be made “through any written act, including extrajudicial, suitable to make the employee’s intention known”.
Second Term (Judicial Action): The extrajudicial challenge is considered “ineffective if not followed, within the subsequent one hundred and eighty days, by filing a claim with the labor court registry or by notifying the other party of a request for conciliation or arbitration”.
Failure to comply with even a single one of these deadlines results in the forfeiture of the right to challenge the dismissal and, consequently, in the stabilization of its effects, preventing the employee from seeking either reinstatement or the merely compensatory remedies provided by the special legislation.
The classification of the term as a “forfeiture period” is of crucial importance. Pursuant to Article 2964 of the Italian Civil Code, forfeiture is neither subject to interruption nor suspension, unless otherwise provided. This general principle renders the dismissal challenge period impervious to personal circumstances that would normally suspend the running of time, such as illness. The rationale behind this rule is to require the exercise of a right within a predetermined and brief timeframe, thereby crystallizing an otherwise uncertain legal situation.
The 60-day period (dies a quo) begins from the “receipt” of the dismissal notice. Since dismissal is a unilateral communicative act, its effectiveness and the commencement of the related deadlines are governed by Article 1335 of the Civil Code, which establishes a presumption of knowledge:
“A proposal, acceptance, revocation, or any other declaration addressed to a specific person is deemed known at the moment it reaches the recipient’s address, unless the recipient proves that, without fault, they were unable to have knowledge of it.”
It is precisely the interpretation of this provision that underpins the established jurisprudential orientation.
Indeed, the Supreme Court’s rulings, dating back to early decisions such as Cass. no. 5563 of 1982, have interpreted these rules in a rigorous and formalistic manner, prioritizing legal certainty.
The dominant approach follows the so-called “theory of receipt” or “theory of knowability”. Under this interpretation, what matters for the effectiveness of the act is not the actual knowledge of the recipient, but its mere knowability, which is presumed at the moment the act reaches the recipient’s address.
As a direct consequence, the rebuttal allowed under Article 1335 c.c. (“impossibility of knowledge without fault”) cannot relate to the recipient’s subjective conditions.
As highlighted by the United Sections in the ordinance referring the matter to the Constitutional Court:
“The evidence suitable to overcome the presumption must therefore concern circumstances not related to the recipient’s subjective conditions but to external and objective factors, concerning the connection between the individual and the place of delivery, sufficient to exclude the knowability of the act” (Cass., United Sections, ordinance of 5 September 2024, registered as no. 202/2024).
Therefore, the employee’s incapacity to understand and act (natural incapacity) – being purely subjective and internal – has consistently been considered irrelevant for the running of the forfeiture period. The period starts inexorably from the moment the dismissal letter is delivered, regardless of whether the employee is able to comprehend its content or respond.
The United Sections further excluded the possibility of protecting the incapacitated employee under Article 428 c.c., which governs the annulment of acts carried out by persons lacking capacity. The rationale is that Article 428 c.c. applies to commissive acts (e.g., signing a contract). The failure to challenge a dismissal, instead, is an omissive conduct, a “failure to act” in defense of one’s rights, to which the rule cannot extend.
Jurisprudence has always justified this strict interpretation by balancing the interests at stake. On one side, there is the employee’s right to job stability; on the other, the employer’s interest in continuity and stability of business management. Imposing a short forfeiture period serves this latter interest, preventing organizational decisions from remaining in uncertainty for an extended period. Forfeiture, in this perspective, is not a sanction for inaction, but the objective consequence of failing to meet a procedural obligation designed to protect economic relationships.
In summary, the legal and jurisprudential framework can be described as “rigid”, built on three pillars:
- The forfeiture nature of the term, making it insensitive to suspensive causes.
- The presumption of knowability linked to the act’s arrival at the recipient’s address.
- The irrelevance of the employee’s subjective conditions, including natural incapacity, for the running of the deadline.
It is precisely against the rigidity of this consolidated system that the ordinance of the United Sections of the Supreme Court is directed. While acknowledging its internal coherence and purpose of certainty, the referring Court questioned its compatibility with fundamental constitutional principles (reasonableness, equality, right to work, right to defense, and right to health) when applied to extreme situations of absolute and blameless incapacity, where the balance of interests is manifestly disproportionate against the employee.
The constitutional question raised by the United Sections of the Supreme Court
The Constitutional Court’s ruling stems from a question raised by the United Sections of the Supreme Court in a case involving an employee dismissed while suffering from a severe illness, leaving her naturally incapable at the time of receipt of the dismissal and during the 60-day extrajudicial challenge period.
The referring judge highlighted that the rigid application of the forfeiture period, insensitive to the employee’s subjective condition, could violate multiple constitutional provisions, including:
- Article 3 Const., due to manifest unreasonableness, as it equates different situations (capable vs. incapable worker) and disproportionately sacrifices a fundamental right;
- Articles 4 and 35 Const., protecting the right to work, which would be nullified by the blameless loss of the ability to challenge an unlawful dismissal;
- Article 24 Const., guaranteeing the right to judicial action, which would be effectively eliminated by an impossible procedural burden;
- Articles 11 and 117 Const., in relation to Article 27(1)(c) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Directive 2000/78/EC, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and working conditions.
The Supreme Court therefore requested the Constitutional Court to issue an additive ruling, making the forfeiture period run not from the receipt of the dismissal, but from the moment the employee regains capacity to understand and act.
Continue reading the full version published at Il Modulo 24 Contenzioso Lavoro.
