Categories: Insights, Case Law

Tag: sicurezza sul lavoro


8 Jan 2018

No training and administrative liability of the organization

With its judgement No. 53285 dated 23 November 2017, the Court of Cassation confirmed some fundamental principles regarding administrative liability pursuant to Legislative Decree 231/2001 and safety in the workplace. In particular, according to the Court of Cassation, the pre-requisites for the administrative liability for advantages or in the interest of the entity (i) must refer to the conduct and not to the event and (ii) be alternative and concurring with each other, “as the criterion of interest expresses an assessment of the teleological crime, appreciable ex ante, that is at the time of the occurring of the fact, according to a subjective opinion while the advantage criterion has a mainly objective connotation, which can be assessed ex post, on the basis of the effects derived from the occurring of the offence” . Finally, in the judgement, it is reaffirmed, on the basis of a previous orientation, that it does not matter how small the advantage or interest is for they do not represent exemption from the liability of the entity. In view of the above, the Court, in the case submitted for its review, linked the employer’s administrative liability to the unsuitability of the DVR (Risk Assessment Document) adopted and to the inadequacy of the training and information activities provided to the employee who was the victim of serious personal injuries, whereas with reference to the advantage/interest of the entity it highlighted “the incidence of the company’s unfair practice ascertained on the expenses/profit ratio”.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

1 Sep 2026

Company files deleted from the PC: dismissal lawful even without proof of damage

The matter arises from the disciplinary dismissal of an employee performing general secretarial duties who, upon returning the company computer following a change in her duties, handed back…

1 Sep 2026

Overtime work: a summary schedule is not enough, employees must provide strict evidence of both the hours worked and the extent of the overtime performed

With order no. 20700 of 18 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court once again addressed the issue of overtime work, reiterating that employees claiming overtime pay must strictly…

1 Sep 2026

Did you know that… an individual allowance that has remained unchanged for years may become non-absorbable?

In judgment no. 24475 of 5 August 2026, the Employment Section of the Italian Supreme Court confirmed that an individual allowance (i.e. “superminimo”), although normally subject to the…

3 Aug 2026

Pay Transparency: the first requests from employees are starting to arrive (Il Sole 24 Ore, 3 august 2026 – Vittorio De Luca)

Two months after the decree. Since Legislative Decree 96/2026 came into force on 7 June, according to a flash survey conducted by GIDP, 8% of HR directors have…

30 Jul 2026

Corporate controls and data protection: what balance?

A recent judgment of the Court of Pisa, No. 800 of 13 June 2026, addresses a topic of particular interest for companies: the delicate balance between the protection…

30 Jul 2026

Unfair dismissal and reinstatement: the employee must repay the payment in lieu of notice

With order no. 22187 of 28 June 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether payment in lieu of notice paid to an employee must be…