Categories: Insights, Do you know that


28 Nov 2018

DO YOU KNOW THAT… the operative part of the judgment ruling that “increasing severance indemnity” is constitutionally unlawful has now been issued?

In the operative part of judgment 194/2018 issued on 8 November 2018, the Constitutional Court has ruled that art. 3, paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree 23/2015 (governing open-ended employment contracts with increasing protections) is constitutionally unlawful when it links the amount of severance indemnity (for that part not modified by the Dignity Decree) payable to an employee who is dismissed without cause only to that employee’s length of service. According to the Constitutional Court, this method of quantification “implies” that severance indemnity is rigid, having the characteristics of a “standardised, flat rate legal severance payment”. In particular, for the Constitutional Court, the provision in question is contrary to the principles of equality and reasonableness and in conflict with employment laws and protections. The Constitutional Court takes the view that the court must be able to determine the indemnity payable to an employee – within the limits of its own discretionary powers and in accordance with the minimum limit of 6 monthly salaries (previously 4) and the maximum limit of 36 monthly salaries (previously 24) – taking into account not only the employee’s length of service but also on the basis of other criteria which can be “systematically inferred from developments in the restrictive provisions governing dismissals (number of people employed, size of the company’s economic activity, behaviour and situation of the parties)”.

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

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…

16 Sep 2026

Did you know that… repeated violations of company procedures may justify the dismissal of a store manager?

The Italian Supreme Court (Labour Section), in Order No. 25231 of 11 September 2026, upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal for just cause of a store manager who…