By Judgment No. 315 of June 5, 2025, the Court of First Instance of Vicenza ruled that, for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction, the residence of a remote worker can only be considered relevant if it is demonstrated that a substantial and organized part of the work is carried out there on a stable basis, thereby anchoring the performance of the work to that location.
The case
The employee, working as an external sales representative, contested his dismissal by bringing the case before the court in the district of his residence – where he also used the company – provided laptop and mobile phone.
The employer responded by raising a preliminary objection, challenging the court’s territorial jurisdiction.
The judgment
The Court of first instance of Vicenza first referred to Article 413, paragraph 2 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, which, as is well-known, links territorial jurisdiction to three alternative criteria: namely, the district where (i) the employment relationship arose, (ii) the company or (iii) one of its branches to which the employee was assigned or where the employee performed work at the end of the employment relationship is located.
Following the Supreme Court’s previous rulings, the Court of first instance of Vicenza emphasized the need to interpret the concept of company branch broadly, in order to “make the proceedings more efficient and swift, anchoring them in locations normally closer to the employee’s residence, where the evidence necessary for the case can be more easily found” (Supreme Court judgments No. 506/2019 and No. 6458/2018).
That said, the Court of First Instance clarified that, in any case, “there must always be an objective or subjective connection between the place where the employee performs their work and the company’s organization.”
It should be considered that when remote work can be performed interchangeably from any location, without “any other element (or objective or subjective connection, as previously highlighted) emerging that would in any way characterize the employee’s residence as a company branch, in the sense described, then this criterion cannot be taken into account for determining territorial jurisdiction, leaving only the criteria of the place where the contract was concluded (…) or the office to which the employee was assigned (…).”
On this basis, the Court of First Instance of Vicenza – finding no evidence that a stable and organized portion of the employee’s fundamental work performance was carried out at his residence, so as to firmly anchor the activity to that place – upheld the employer’s objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
