The Supreme Court on De Facto Managers: Commentary on Ruling No. 13525/2024 on Workplace Safety
The Supreme Court, with ruling No. 13525/2024, filed on April 8, 2025, reiterates a cornerstone principle of workplace safety: what you do matters, not what you are on paper. The case, concluded with annulment without referral due to the statute of limitations, is nevertheless rich in insights for employers, managers, and HSE consultants.
The Core of the Decision: The Principle of Effectiveness
In matters of workplace accident prevention, the person who, in fact, exercises the powers of the employer, manager, or supervisor assumes the position of guarantor, based on the principle of effectiveness, regardless of their role in the company structure. (Case concerning the crimes of arson and negligent injury, in which the Court, finding that the statute of limitations for the offenses had expired, deemed the affirmation of criminal liability of the defendants, as de facto managers, free from censure, based on their frequent presence in the company, even alongside the owner, their interactions with employees to whom they gave instructions regarding tasks to be performed, and their taking charge of managing the warehouse that stored the chemicals that caused the fire).
The maxim revolves around Article 299 of Legislative Decree 81/2008: whoever exercises management or supervisory powers becomes a "de facto employer/manager/supervisor," with all the obligations – and criminal sanctions – of the role. The Court refers to consistent precedents (Cass. 22606/2017, 31863/2019) to confirm a consolidated orientation.
The Facts: Fire, Injuries, and Statute of Limitations
In the case examined, a fire in a chemical warehouse caused injuries to workers. The defendants, although not formally listed in the organizational chart, were present in the company, gave orders to employees, and managed the warehouse. The trial court had convicted them for the crimes under Articles 590, 423, and 434 of the Italian Criminal Code. The Supreme Court, while declaring the statute of limitations, confirmed the correctness of classifying the individuals as guarantors of safety.
Operational Implications for Businesses
The message for companies is clear: a well-written organizational chart is not enough if the powers do not correspond to reality. The risk is twofold:
- for the natural person who "de facto" manages, as they can be held criminally liable;
- for the company, whose lines of defense are weakened in the event of an accident.
To reduce exposure:
- align formal delegations and effective powers (Art. 16 of Legislative Decree 81/2008);
- adequately train anyone who gives operational instructions;
- monitor the correspondence between the organizational chart and daily practice through internal audits;
- ensure professional liability coverage for managers.
Insights from European Jurisprudence
The EU Court of Justice, as early as case C-127/05, emphasized the principle of effectiveness in worker protection. The European orientation dialogues with Article 6 of the ECHR on the provision of personal responsibility based on the tasks actually performed, reinforcing the Supreme Court's stance.
Conclusions
Ruling No. 13525/2024 reaffirms that safety is not a matter of labels, but of concrete conduct. Companies must constantly verify who, in practice, exercises decision-making powers: that is where criminal liability lies. Aligning delegations, training, and internal controls is not just good practice, but the best defense before the judge.
