On 21 July 2025, judgment no. 118/2025 was filed, in which the Constitutional Court declared the partial constitutional illegitimacy of Article 9, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 (the so-called “Jobs Act”).
The ruling introduces significant changes in the protection against unlawful dismissal for employees of employers who do not meet the employment requirements set out in Article 18, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Workers’ Statute (so-called “sub-threshold employers”).
The contested provision (Article 9, paragraph 1, Legislative Decree 23/2015) provided for employees unlawfully dismissed by sub-threshold employers exclusively monetary protection, establishing that the amount of compensation provided for the various cases of unlawful dismissal (Articles 3, 4 and 6 of the same legislative decree) was to be halved compared to the compensation guaranteed to employees of companies with more than 15 employees and, in any case, could not exceed the limit of six months’ salary.
The Court held that the maximum limit of six months’ salary did not allow for “personalisation of the damage suffered by the worker” and did not constitute an effective deterrent against unlawful dismissals, violating the principles of reasonableness, equality and protection of employment (Articles 3, 4, 35, 41 and 117 of the Constitution).
Consequently, with the ruling in question, the Council declared the constitutional illegitimacy of this provision limited to the words ‘and may not in any case exceed the limit of six months’ salary.’ As a result, while the mechanism of halving the amounts remains in force, the maximum limit of six months’ salary no longer applies.
The Court’s intervention significantly expands the discretion of the judge, who may now award – in favour of employees hired after 7 March 2015 by employers below the threshold – compensation exceeding six months’ salary and up to a maximum of 18 months’ salary, commensurate with the specific circumstances of the case. The judge must take into account not only length of service but also other criteria such as the size of the employer’s economic activity (which, as emphasised by the Court, is not limited to the number of employees), the behaviour and conditions of the parties, thus ensuring that compensation is “personalised”.
The decision is consistent with the previous ruling no. 183/2022, in which the Court, although it had declared the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 9, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree 23/2015 inadmissible at the time, had nevertheless already identified a flaw in the relevant legislation and called for legislative action. In view of the inaction of the legislator, the Court decided that it could not wait any longer and took direct action to remove the most critical aspect of unconstitutionality.
As hoped for by the Court itself, future intervention by the legislator remains necessary in order to comprehensively review the criteria for identifying small businesses, supplementing the number of employees with indicators that are more representative of the employer’s real economic strength, such as turnover or total balance sheet.
