February 20, 2025
Incentives
New “Inbound Workers” Regime: When Are Six or Seven Years Abroad Required?
Italian Revenue Agency
An Italian worker, after spending six years in France, plans to return to Italy in 2025 to work for the same company he had previously worked for between 2015 and 2016. He asks the Italian Revenue Agency whether he can benefit from the new tax relief scheme for inbound workers, which grants a reduced tax rate on employment income.
The Agency clarifies that the minimum period of residence abroad required depends on a key factor:
- If, upon returning, the worker is employed by the same company he worked for abroad in the most recent period, the minimum requirement is six years.
- However, if the worker was already employed in Italy by the same company or another company within the same group before moving abroad, the minimum period increases to seven years.
In this specific case, since there is no continuity between the employer immediately before expatriation and the one to which the worker will return, the Revenue Agency confirms that the minimum required period of residence abroad remains six years.
March 3, 2025
Disability
Disability Assessment Reform: Extension and Expansion of the Trial Phase
INPS
The Italian National Social Security Institute (INPS) has provided clarifications on the amendments to the disability assessment reform introduced by Decree-Law No. 202 of December 27, 2024, converted into Law No. 15 of February 21, 2025.
The reform, which granted INPS exclusive authority over disability assessments and unified evaluations for civil disability, blindness, deafness, and disability for educational and employment inclusion purposes, initially included a trial phase in 2025 across nine provinces. The new provisions extend this trial phase, starting September 30, 2025, to eleven additional provinces and to new medical conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, heart disease, respiratory diseases, and oncological conditions.
Furthermore, the reform’s implementation, originally scheduled for January 1, 2026, has been postponed to January 1, 2027. During the transitional period, until December 31, 2026, the current rules for disability assessments and related benefits will continue to apply.
This extension allows for a longer adaptation period for all stakeholders and ensures that assessment criteria are refined before nationwide implementation.
March 3, 2025
Working Hours, Leave, and Absences
Legitimate Absence for Leave Under Law 104/1992, Even If Not Communicated
Supreme Court
A worker, dismissed for 12 days of unexcused absence, challenged the decision, arguing that he had taken leave under Article 33, Paragraph 3, of Law No. 104/1992, as expanded by Decree-Law No. 18/2020, to assist his disabled minor child. The Court of Appeal upheld his claim, ordering reinstatement and compensation equivalent to 12 months’ salary.
The employer appealed, arguing that the lack of prior notice rendered the justification insufficient. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, clarifying that leave under Law 104/1992 does not require prior authorization. While notifying the employer is advisable for organizational and professional courtesy reasons, it is not mandatory unless contractually required.
The Court ruled that failure to notify cannot be equated to unexcused absence, confirming the dismissal’s unlawfulness. This decision reinforces workers’ rights to take leave for family care without excessive restrictions imposed by employers.
March 2, 2025
Executives
Unused Leave: Executives Always Entitled to Compensation Unless Employer Proves Otherwise
Supreme Court
A company executive requested compensation for unused leave over the last seven years of employment. The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, arguing that due to his managerial autonomy, the burden was on him to prove that exceptional circumstances prevented him from taking leave.
The Supreme Court overturned this decision, stating that the burden of proof lies with the employer. According to established national and EU case law, the right to financial compensation for unused leave is lost only if the employer demonstrates that it formally encouraged the worker to take the leave and ensured that company operations allowed for its use.
This ruling strengthens the protection of the right to leave and reinforces the employer’s obligation to guarantee its effective use.
February 21, 2025
Individual Dismissal
Retroactive Disciplinary Dismissal: Supreme Court Defines Its Limits
Supreme Court
A bank employee, temporarily suspended due to a criminal investigation, was later dismissed with retroactive effect to the date of the disciplinary charge. The company also requested reimbursement of salaries paid during the suspension, in accordance with the applicable National Collective Bargaining Agreement (CCNL).
The employee challenged the dismissal, raising two issues:
- Whether the retroactive rule applied to a charge issued before Law No. 92/2012 came into force.
- Whether salary payments during the suspension had to be reimbursed in case of dismissal.
The Supreme Court ruled that retroactive dismissal is not applicable in such cases, emphasizing that disciplinary proceedings must be considered as a whole and that employees must be aware of the consequences from the outset. Furthermore, the CCNL, while allowing for salary payments during suspension, does not require their reimbursement upon dismissal.
This decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in disciplinary dismissals and strengthens employees’ financial protections during suspension.
February 28, 2025
Individual Dismissal
Derogatory Video in Private Chat: No Just Cause for Dismissal
Supreme Court
An employee was dismissed for sharing a video in a private WhatsApp chat among 14 store employees that mocked a customer. The company deemed the behavior damaging to its reputation and grounds for immediate termination.
Upon appeal, the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal, ruling that the message, being shared in a private group, falls under the protection of freedom and confidentiality of communications as guaranteed by Article 15 of the Constitution. The fact that the company learned about the video through a report from another chat participant did not alter its inadmissibility as disciplinary evidence.
This ruling reinforces the principle that private conversations, even digital ones, are specially protected and cannot serve as grounds for just-cause dismissal.
February 12, 2025
Dismissal for Just Cause
Legitimate Dismissal for Employee’s Personal Use of Company Vehicle
Supreme Court, Labor Section
A worker was dismissed after repeatedly using a company vehicle for personal reasons during working hours, as verified by a private investigation agency hired by the employer. The company argued that the employee fraudulently reduced his working hours, creating a false appearance of being on duty.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, affirming that the investigative activities conducted by the employer were lawful. The surveillance was not intended to monitor work performance but rather to detect fraudulent conduct. The investigation revealed that the employee was absent from work despite clocking in.
Moreover, the Court ruled that the fraudulent conduct—falsely reporting presence at work and using the company vehicle for non-work-related purposes—justified dismissal, regardless of whether it constituted a criminal offense or caused financial damage.
This decision confirms that personal misuse of company assets, particularly when accompanied by deception, can be grounds for immediate dismissal.
