By Order No. 15987 of 2025, the Italian Supreme Court – Labour Section – reaffirmed the strict application of Article 1335 of the Civil Code, establishing that the presumption of knowledge of “legal notices” (i.e. “atti recettizi”) cannot be rebutted by subjective obstacles, even when the recipient is in a vulnerable physical or mental condition and the notification is intentionally concealed by a cohabiting family member.
The case concerned the dismissal of an employee due to permanent and absolute unsuitability, communicated via letter sent to the employee’s registered residential address. Specifically, the dismissal letter was duly delivered but collected by the employee’s mother, who deliberately withheld the information with the stated intention of protecting her son from potential psychological harm. As a result, the employee contested the dismissal after the statutory deadline had expired.
Both the Court of first instance and the Bologna Court of Appeal declared the employee’s appeal inadmissible due to the expiration of the challenge period, holding that the presumption of knowledge was perfected by the proper delivery of the notice to the recipient’s address.
The Supreme Court subsequently upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal of Bologna. The core of the decision lies in the strict interpretation of Article 1335 of the Italian Civil Code, according to which a legal notice is presumed known from the moment it is received at the recipient’s address, unless the recipient proves that they were in an objective and blameless condition preventing them from becoming aware of it. Subjective impediments or acts of third-party cohabitants do not bear relevance in this context.
In this specific case, the Italian Supreme Court rejected the argument that the employee’s health condition or the mother’s decision to conceal the letter could constitute an objective impediment. These circumstances pertain to the recipient’s personal and family sphere and are insufficient to overcome the legal presumption of knowledge. Only external factors, beyond the recipient’s control – such as natural disasters, postal errors, or prolonged absence due to force majeure – may constitute valid grounds to rebut the presumption.
In conclusion, this ruling highlights the peremptory nature of the deadlines for contesting dismissals, even in situations where subjective elements prevent the employee from being made aware of the disciplinary measure imposed against them.
Other related insights:
