Categories: Insights, Case Law


26 Feb 2018

Dismissal due to the use of a company car for private purpose is out of proportion

In Judgment no. 1377 lodged on 19 January 2018, the Court of Cassation has stated – in regard to an employment contract stipulated before the entry into force of Legislative Decree no. 23/2015 (so-called Jobs Act) – that a dismissal for just cause imposed on a worker who systematically used the company car, assigned to him only for reasons of his office, to travel from home to work and to go to lunch, is disproportionate. The Supreme Court relies on the assumption that in order to allow dismissal for just cause, a worker must have irremediably violated the fiduciary relationship that binds him to the employer, engaging in a conduct that is motivated by an abusive intent, in stark contrast to corporate rules. An essential element of this – according to the Court – is the proportionality of the behaviour at hand and the punishment imposed on the worker. Now, in the case at hand, in the court’s opinion, the conduct of the worker, even if unlawful, is certainly to be considered less serious, given that the use of a company car did not produce any negative consequences for the employer company, nor has it violated the company rules and the “values of the workers’ community”. In considering the dismissal out of proportion, the Court, therefore, concluded that the worker must be reinstated in his original job.

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…