In its interesting judgement no. 8 of 2 January 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that, in view of the special nature of the governance of the invalidity of dismissal compared to the general governance of negotiated invalidity, the judge may not of his own motion find any reason for the dismissal to be invalid other than that raised as an objection by the party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court case originates from a disciplinary\ndismissal intimated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to an administrative\nofficer of the Consulate General of Italy in S\u00e3o Paulo, Brazil, for alleged\nirregularities committed in the issuance of visas for entry into Italy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The dismissal was imposed by invoking Article\n25, paragraph 5 letters (a) and (d) of the National Collective Bargaining\nAgreement 1994-1997 and therefore the cases relating to the ‘commission in service of serious criminal\noffences<\/em>‘ (point (a) and the commission of ‘intentional acts or deeds, not covered by point (a), even in relation\nto third parties, of such seriousness that the employment relationship cannot\nbe continued, even provisionally<\/em>‘ (letter (d)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n In detail, the conduct from which the\nsanction of dismissal resulted, carried out between November 2000 and April\n2001, was challenged in May 2001, with disciplinary proceedings then suspended\npending the outcome of criminal proceedings on the matter which was then\nfollowed by dismissal in November 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court of Appeal of Rome, having examined\nthe proceedings, had rejected the complaint lodged by the administrative\nofficer against the judgement of the Judge of First Instance of Rome who had\nrejected the challenge against the disciplinary dismissal, reiterating its\nlawfulness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court of Appeal had, in fact, held that,\nnotwithstanding the acquittal due to the running of the statute of limitations\npronounced in the criminal court, the acts coming from the Criminal Court and\nevaluated in the disciplinary proceedings had confirmed the prosecuted conduct\nand legitimated the choice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to adopt the\nnon-conservative sanction of dismissal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In its interesting judgement no. 8 of 2 January 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that, in view of the special nature of the governance of the invalidity of dismissal compared to the general governance of negotiated invalidity, the judge may not of his own motion find any reason for the dismissal to be invalid other […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[177,190,208],"tags":[941],"class_list":{"0":"post-21487","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"hentry","6":"category-insights","8":"category-publications","9":"tag-licenziamento-en"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n