Case Law

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 12103/2011, specified that the joint exam at the Ministry of Labour for applying to the lay-off extraordinary intervention itself does not guarantee the lawfulness of the procedure.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 22334/2011, stated that de facto administrator of a company is liable for breach of rules regarding work safety but solely in the circumstances of proof of interference in managing the company.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 10341 of May 11, 2011, stated that indemnity in lieu of unused vacations and weekly rests is not considered as item of salary but compensation for damages.

Court of Cassation, with the sentence no. 20845/2011, stated that financial straits of the employer may not justify the missed payment of the social security deductions anyhow.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 6625/2011, stated that the burden of proof regarding the possibility to assign the dismissing employee to duties equivalent or similar to those assigned before, is charged on the employer. Even though it has not to be understood in a strict way, this burden shall not be fulfilled solely with the proof of the proposal to the employee to carry out a self-employment activity, without any real guarantee related to job flow and compensation, in particular if worthier chances have been proposed to other employees.