7 October 2025
Individual dismissal
Revocation of dismissal: valid only if timely and communicated to the employee
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
An employee challenged her dismissal by the company. The employer later communicated the revocation of the dismissal. However, the employee continued with the legal action, arguing that the revocation was ineffective.
The Court of Appeal upheld the employee’s claim, noting that for a revocation to be effective, it must occur within a reasonable time and must be clearly and promptly communicated to the employee. The ruling was confirmed by the Court of Cassation.
The Supreme Court reiterated that an employer may revoke a dismissal that has already been served, but for such revocation to produce effects, it must be communicated before the employee has expressed the intention not to accept it—for example, by filing a challenge or initiating legal action. A revocation cannot be considered effective if it is communicated too late or if it fails to reach the employee with certainty. In such cases, the employee retains the right to have the illegitimacy of the dismissal established.
20 September 2025
Dismissal for exceeding the protected leave period (“comporto”)
Dismissal for exceeding the leave period: absence due to workplace injury also counts, even if not attributable to the employer
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
An employee who was absent due to a workplace injury was dismissed by the company for exceeding the protected period of absence (“comporto period”). The Court of Appeal found the dismissal lawful, as it was consistent with the applicable collective bargaining agreement. The employee appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that the absence resulted from an injury not attributable to the employer.
The Supreme Court confirmed the lawfulness of the dismissal, reiterating that, under the rules on the comporto period, absences due to workplace injuries—whether or not attributable to the employer—are included in the calculation of the maximum allowed period. Therefore, if that period is exceeded, the employer may terminate the employment, regardless of the origin of the illness or injury. The Court emphasized the autonomy of collective agreements in setting objective limits on the duration of absences, while respecting specific statutory protections (e.g., for maternity or disability).
2 October 2025
Executives
Dismissal of an executive: the judge may assess proportionality
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
An executive was dismissed for alleged breaches of the duty of fairness and loyalty toward the company. The Court of Appeal upheld the lawfulness of the dismissal, considering the assessment of proportionality irrelevant given the employee’s managerial position.
The Court of Cassation overturned the ruling, reaffirming an important principle: even in the case of an executive’s dismissal, the judge may assess the proportionality of the measure in relation to the alleged misconduct. The trial judge, while confirming the existence of a violation, must verify whether it was serious enough to irreparably damage the relationship of trust. Therefore, an executive is not devoid of protection: his contractual position does not justify a merely formal assessment of the dismissal’s legitimacy.
23 September 2025
Business transfer
Legitimate transfer of a business unit created in preparation for sale
Court of Rome
Several employees challenged the transfer of their employment from a bank to a servicing company, arguing that it constituted an unlawful transfer lacking the requirements of a legitimate business branch transfer.
The Court rejected the claim entirely. The transferring company had reorganized the management of non-performing loans into two autonomous segments: corporate and retail. The “Retail Non-Performing Loans” branch was then sold, along with the employees involved.
According to the Court, the requirement of the preexistence of a business branch does not imply a long duration; it is sufficient that, at the time of the transfer, there exists an organizational entity that is functionally autonomous and capable of operating independently. The fact that the branch was created in anticipation of the transfer does not invalidate its legitimacy. It is lawful for an employer to restructure the business with a view to transferring part of it, provided that the statutory requirements are met.
As for autonomy, the sharing or contractual control of certain tools or premises does not exclude the existence of an autonomous branch, as long as it has its own dedicated resources and staff and is capable of functioning independently.
17 September 2025
Labour supply (staff leasing)
Abuse of staff leasing: permanent employment relationship recognized in favor of the worker
Court of Bari
A worker belonging to a protected category had worked under a labour supply arrangement (staff leasing) for the same user company continuously for over six years. The assignment, initially fixed-term, was later converted into an open-ended arrangement and subsequently terminated unilaterally by the company due to the suspension of production.
The Court of Bari found that the repeated assignments to the same user company, in the absence of any genuine temporary need and in a context of ongoing structural requirements, amounted to an abuse of staff leasing.
Referring to the principles established by the EU Court of Justice and the Italian Court of Cassation, the judge emphasized that even open-ended staff leasing must comply with the requirement of the temporary nature of the assignment. Otherwise— as in this case— it constitutes a fraud against the law.
Accordingly, the Court declared the leasing contracts null and established a direct permanent employment relationship between the worker and the user company, with the corresponding job classification and an order to pay the statutory compensation.
4 September 2025
Confidentiality and privacy
Pseudonymized data: the EU Court clarifies when they remain “personal”
Court of Justice of the European Union
The EU Court of Justice ruled in a case between the European Data Protection Supervisor and the Single Resolution Board (SRB) concerning the transmission to a consulting firm of information about shareholders of a bank under resolution. The key issue was whether pseudonymized data could still be regarded as “personal data” when the individuals’ identities were not directly identifiable.
The Court held that pseudonymization, while reducing the risk of identification, does not automatically strip data of their personal nature. However, when the technical and organizational measures implemented effectively prevent the re-identification of the data subjects, such data may cease to be personal for the recipient, though they remain personal for the original controller holding the re-identification key.
This principle, of significant practical importance, therefore distinguishes between the position of the data controller and that of third-party recipients, reinforcing the concept of a “relative” assessment of identifiability.
9 October 2025
Social security and contributions
The Labour Inspectorate’s report can be challenged even before INPS measures are issued
Court of Cassation, Labour Section
A company appealed before the Court against an inspection report issued by the Labour Inspectorate, disputing the alleged irregularities and their potential impact on its contribution position. The first-instance court declared the appeal inadmissible for lack of interest, holding that the inspection report did not have immediate effects. The decision was upheld on appeal.
The Court of Cassation, however, accepted the company’s appeal, ruling that a Labour Inspectorate report can constitute a prejudicial act and may therefore be challenged. According to the Supreme Court, when the report identifies violations that could lead to a recovery of social security contributions, it directly affects the company’s compliance status— with significant consequences, for instance, for obtaining the DURC (compliance certificate) or participating in public tenders.
Therefore, the company has a concrete and current interest in seeking judicial review to establish that no contribution liability exists. The Court annulled the contested decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeal for further examination.
