Categories: Insights


24 Jan 2016

Court of Cassation: dismissal for justified subjective grounds may also be changed by court, even by the court of appeal

With its judgment No. 21 of 4 January 2016, the Court of Cassation has stated that the so-called omitted ruling flaw shall be triggered for the judge, also the court of appeal judge, who declares unlawful a dismissal served for cause without the court first checking the feasibility of turning it into a dismissal for justified subjective grounds. In particular, the Supreme Court of Cassation holds that the just cause and the justified subjective grounds for dismissal are just mere legal definitions of behaviours which are equally fit to justify the termination of the employment and this, in general, entitles the judge to turn a dismissal for cause in terms of dismissal for justified subjective grounds. But there is more. As also stated by the Court, the judge, also the court of appeal judge, would be automatically requested to redefine the dismissal, provided that the necessary conditions are met. The above since the minor claim concerning the ascertainment of the termination of the employment for justified subjective grounds is deemed to be included in the claim having as scope the ascertainment as to whether the termination of the employment for cause is lawful. The Court of Cassation thus confirmed what had already been ruled on the subject matter with a prior judgment of 2008.

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

12 Oct 2026

“AI tools, remote work and confidential data: employer liability in a borderless environment” – IBA Conference 2026

At the IBA Annual Conference 2026 in Copenhagen, our Managing Partner Vittorio De Luca moderated a panel on one of the most pressing challenges facing employers today: the…

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…