Court of Cassation, Order No. 16826 of 2025: Passive Legitimation and 'Co-management' in Medical-University Disputes

The Order of the Court of Cassation No. 16826 of June 23, 2025, issued by the Labor Section and with Dr. R. B. as rapporteur, provides a fundamental clarification on passive legitimation in labor disputes. The ruling focuses on the peculiar position of medical directors operating within university hospital facilities, an area where the 'dual affiliation' to healthcare and academic structures often generates legal complexities. This jurisprudential contribution is crucial for the protection of professionals and the institutions involved.

The Principle of 'Co-management' and Joint Liability

The Supreme Court, in resolving the dispute between A. G. and F. A. (which had seen the appeal rejected by the Court of Appeal of Naples on February 13, 2020), reaffirmed a cornerstone principle, based on established jurisprudence (such as United Sections No. 8521 of 2012) and current legislation (Legislative Decree 502/1992 and Legislative Decree 517/1999). The central point is the configuration of genuine 'co-management' between the university facility and the university itself. Here is the full maxim:

In disputes initiated by university employees, serving as medical directors of university hospital facilities, there is joint and concurrent passive legitimation of the university facility and the university, given that the relationships between the two entities, as emerging from the regulations governing their respective activities, constitute genuine "co-management," which grounds the procedural legitimation of both on the level of passive obligations within the employment relationship.

This statement is of paramount importance. It means that, in the event of a labor dispute, the medical director can sue both the university hospital facility and the university. The reason for this 'joint and concurrent' passive legitimation lies in the deep interconnection and integration of the activities carried out by the two entities. The reference regulations outline a framework of synergy such as to justify shared responsibility, ensuring greater protection for the worker and simplifying legal action.

Practical Implications and Benefits for the Worker

The consequences of this interpretation are significant for all stakeholders involved. For medical directors, the ability to act against both entities considerably reduces the risks of procedural errors and offers greater legal certainty. It will no longer be necessary to precisely identify the sole responsible party, avoiding procedural delays or the need for joinder of parties. This approach recognizes the complex organizational reality of university hospital facilities, where clinical, teaching, and research activities are intrinsically linked. 'Co-management' is not just an organizational fact, but a principle that translates into shared obligations and responsibilities, strengthening the worker's position.

• Greater Certainty: Workers can rely on extended passive legitimation.
• Procedural Efficiency: Separate proceedings or joinder of parties are avoided.
• Enhanced Protection: The principle reflects operational reality and ensures the full effectiveness of rights.

Conclusions

Order No. 16826 of 2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a significant step forward for the protection of medical directors operating in university hospital facilities. By clarifying the principle of joint and concurrent passive legitimation, the Supreme Court has provided a valuable tool for resolving labor disputes in a sensitive sector. This ruling not only simplifies legal action for workers but also consolidates an interpretation of the relationship between the university and the facility that reflects their actual integration and shared responsibility, ensuring the full effectiveness of rights.