Jurisdiction of the Labour Judge for Damages to Relatives: Cassation Order 9972/2025

In the landscape of labour law and civil liability, the issue of jurisdictional competence is of fundamental importance, especially when dealing with sensitive cases such as fatal workplace accidents. The Court of Cassation, with Order No. 9972 of April 16, 2025, has provided essential clarification regarding the jurisdiction for claims for damages brought by the relatives of a worker who died as a result of an accident. This ruling, which rejected an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of Palermo of October 20, 2023, serves as a beacon for better understanding the boundaries between the jurisdiction of the labour judge and that of the ordinary judge, based on the nature of the right being asserted.

The Crucial Distinction: 'Jure Proprio' vs. 'Jure Hereditario'

The core of the issue addressed by the Supreme Court lies in the difference between a claim for damages brought 'jure proprio' and one brought 'jure hereditario'. When a worker suffers a fatal accident, their relatives may initiate legal proceedings to obtain compensation. However, the nature of this action determines the judge's jurisdiction.

• A 'jure hereditario' claim arises when the relatives act in their capacity as heirs of the deceased worker, succeeding to the legal position of their predecessor. In this case, they assert the employer's contractual liability towards the worker themselves, arising from the employment contract. Traditionally, such disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the labour judge, pursuant to Article 409 of the Code of Civil Procedure (c.p.c.), as they concern rights derived from the employment relationship.
• Conversely, a 'jure proprio' claim is one where the relatives act for damage they have suffered directly and independently due to the death of their relative. This does not involve succeeding to the deceased's position but asserting their own right to compensation. This type of damage, often moral or financial (such as loss of support), finds its source in non-contractual liability, i.e., civil tort as defined by Article 2043 of the Civil Code. Article 2043 c.c. establishes the general principle of 'neminem laedere', meaning the obligation for anyone who causes unjust damage through intent or negligence to compensate for it.

It is precisely on this second scenario that the Cassation Order focuses, clearly outlining the consequences in terms of jurisdiction.

The Cassation's Ruling: A Firm Stance on Jurisdiction

The claim for damages brought by the relatives of a deceased worker, not 'jure hereditario' to assert the employer's contractual liability towards their predecessor, but 'jure proprio', as individuals who have suffered damage from the death of their relative and, therefore, as holders of an independent right to compensation stemming from non-contractual liability under Article 2043 c.c., falls outside the subject-matter jurisdiction of the labour judge and is devolved to the cognizance of the competent judge according to the general criterion of value.

This ruling is of fundamental importance. The Court, presided over by Dr. G. Travaglino and with Dr. I. Ambrosi as rapporteur and author, unequivocally establishes that if the relatives of a worker who died in a workplace accident seek compensation for damages (financial and moral) not as heirs (and therefore not to assert the employer's contractual liability towards the deceased), but as individuals who have suffered their own independent damage, then the jurisdiction does not lie with the labour judge. In such cases, the dispute falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary judge, who will determine competence based on the value of the claim, as provided by the general rules of the Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 10 and 14 c.p.c.).

This principle reiterates that the subject-matter jurisdiction of the labour judge is strictly linked to the nature of the employment relationship and the claims arising from it. When the claim for compensation is based on an independent right of the relatives, rooted in non-contractual liability for a tort (the death of the relative), this link is severed, and the dispute shifts to the realm of ordinary justice.

Practical Implications and Legal References

The practical implications of this order are significant for anyone intending to initiate legal proceedings to obtain compensation following a fatal workplace accident. It is essential that the action is correctly qualified from the outset to avoid errors regarding jurisdiction, which could lead to delays and additional costs. Article 38 c.p.c., cited among the legal references, specifically governs the detectability of lack of jurisdiction, even ex officio, making the correct identification of the judge crucial from the earliest stages of the proceedings.

The ruling aligns with previous orientations of the Cassation itself, such as Order No. 907 of 2018 (Rv. 647127-01), which had already drawn this distinction. The reference to Article 2043 c.c. is the pivot of the decision, highlighting how the protection of relatives for their own damages fits into the broader system of tortious civil liability, distinct from contractual liability.

Conclusions and Future Trends

Order No. 9972 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation offers valuable clarification and practical guidance for lawyers and citizens. It reiterates that the jurisdiction of the labour judge is not unlimited but is confined to disputes that originate from the employment relationship. Claims for damages brought 'jure proprio' by the relatives of a deceased worker, based on the employer's non-contractual liability under Article 2043 c.c., must be filed with the ordinary judge, whose jurisdiction will be determined based on the value of the case. This distinction, although it may appear technical, is fundamental to ensuring the correct initiation of proceedings and the effective protection of the rights of victims and their families, avoiding procedural delays and ensuring more efficient access to justice.