Case Law

The Court of Cassation hasn’t recognized that an accident so called “in itinere” occurred (and has denied the relevant restore) to a worker who used to go to work by motorcycle and not by public means of transport.

The Supreme Court, with the order no. 17720/2010, stated that the minutes of the social security institutions’ officials are to be considered as evidence of the circumstances that the officials certify as occurred in their presence, whereas, with reference to the other circumstances indicated, the probative material is valuable and appreciable by the judge.

The Court of Cassation stated that the employer is entitled to refuse to hire a disabled worker whether if the latter has an employment status different from the one required by the employer itself or just a “similar” status, i.e. not exactly equal to the one requested.

The Court of Cassation pointed out that the Company which changes the employment status of the apprentice employee immediately after the advanced conversion of its apprenticeship agreement into an open-term employment agreement, will not be entitled to enjoy the social security contribution’s facilities (i.e. one year of facilitated social security contribution), provided by law in such a case.

The Court of Cassation, with sentence n. 12596/2010, pointed out that in case of administrative sanctions imposed by the Inspective Labour Department (so called “Ispettorato del Lavoro”) for not registered employment relationships, the application of legality and non-retroactivity principles as well as the prohibition of analogical application of law requires the subjection of the unlawful behaviour to the law discipline applicable at the moment on which the offence took place;