Categories: Insights


25 Jul 2016

Court of Cassation: in the event of dismissal, compensation remains within the limits of what was applied for

The Court of Cassation, with its judgement No. 13876 of 7 July 2016, said that any judge who – in the face of a petition from a claimant, which seeks, as a result of an unlawful dismissal, the sentencing of the employer to pay 6 times the final month’s actual global salary and, however, an amount not less than 2.5 monthly salaries – orders the reinstatement of the worker by forcing the employer to pay all the salaries not paid up to the date of the actual reinstatement to work, incurs the defect of excess. This is also true, even if the dismissal was not in written form. According to the Court, in fact, if the claimant in quantifying their claim for damages has placed a definite limit to the size of the quantum requested, the employer cannot be sentenced to pay an amount in excess of that. Moreover, the Court considers that this limit cannot be exceeded even with the reference “to the sum that the judge will decide” which may be included in the conclusions of the action, not only due to the purely formal content of the remark, that does not express an uncertainty about the amount of damage that should actually be liquidated, but mainly because deferring to the judge means relying on his discretion in determining the amount due between the minimum and maximum pursuant to Art. 8 of Law No. 604/1966.

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…