Categories: Insights, Case Law


28 Jan 2018

Punitive consequences for late claims

The Court of Cassation in its Plenary Sitting, with judgement No. 30985/2017 resolved a conflict of case-law regarding the penalty in the case of disciplinary dismissal affected by a late claim of unlawfulness. The controversy from which the judgement of the Plenary Sitting emerged, arose from an appeal filed at the court by an employee in disagreement with the dismissal for just cause ordered as the implementation of disciplinary proceedings initiated approximately 2 years after the employer became aware of the facts charged to him. Case law presented two contrasting interpretations. According to the first interpretation, the late claim did not have substantial value in terms of employer’s right of withdrawal, thus triggering the indemnification protection as per article 18, paragraph 5 of the Workers’ Charter. The second interpretation deems the immediacy of the dismissal order a fundamental element of the employer’s right of withdrawal, with consequent application of the reintegration protection pursuant to article 18, paragraph 4, of the Workers’ Charter. The Plenary Sitting of the Court chose to adhere – at the end of lengthy proceedings – to the first interpretation, stating the following law principle: “The judgement concerning disciplinary dismissal following the occurrence of a significant and unjustified delay in issuing the claim related to the charge leading to the dismissal and falling “ratione temporis” under the provisions of article 18 of the law No. 300 dated 1970, as amended by paragraph 42 of article 1 of the law No. 92 dated 28.6.2012, gives rise to the application of the indemnification penalty as established in the fifth paragraph of article 18 of the law No. 300/1970”. This means that, upon the occurrence of unlawful dismissal due to a late claim, full indemnification protection shall apply, which means a reimbursement in favour of the interested employee, without prejudice to the termination of the employment relationship, in an amount ranging from 12 to 24 monthly pay based on the last total salary paid.

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

20 May 2026

Webinar “May 1st Decree: Key Updates and what’s New” –  HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

On the occasion of our webinar “An HR Coffee with De Luca Partners,” the speakers Silvia Zulato, Senior Associate, and Alessandro Riccardo Polli from the Labour Consulting Division…

12 May 2026

Legitimate dismissal for false attendance reporting and misuse of access system data (Camera di Commercio Francese in Italia – Vittorio De Luca, Silvia Zulato)

With Order No. 7985 of 31 March 2026, the Italian Supreme Court – Labour Section – confirmed the lawfulness of a dismissal for just cause imposed on an…

30 Apr 2026

Webinar “Bonuses: What Do You Need to Know About Objectives?” – HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners

Yesterday, during our first webinar “HR Coffee with De Luca & Partners", the speakers Vittorio De Luca, Managing Partner, and Alessandra Zilla, Managing Associate at De Luca &…

27 Apr 2026

Management of corporate email after termination of employment: the Italian Data Protection Authority extends the right of access to all emails in the individual email account 

“An employee may access the messages in their corporate email account and the documents stored on their computer after the termination of employment. Any limitations must be justified by specific…

27 Apr 2026

Unemployment benefits and resignation following transfer beyond 50 km: distance alone is not sufficient, employer’s breach must be proven  

With order no. 10559 of 21 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court addressed the issue of unemployment benefits (i.e. “NASpI”) in the context of resignations for just cause following…

27 Apr 2026

DID YOU KNOW THAT… the probationary period clause is null and void if the duties are described in generic terms? 

The Court of Milan, with judgment no. 683 of 3 April 2026, reaffirmed that a probationary clause (i.e. “patto di prova”) is valid only if it contains a specific indication of the duties subject to…