Duty Victims: The Court of Cassation Clarifies Criteria with Order No. 16669 of 2025

Recognition of "duty victim" status offers significant benefits to public employees injured in the line of duty. Order No. 16669 of the Court of Cassation, dated June 22, 2025, provides crucial clarification on the precise conditions for such protections.

Regulatory Framework and Qualified Risk

Law No. 266 of 2005, Article 1, paragraph 563, protects employees who sustain injuries in specific risky activities. The Court of Cassation, presided over by F. S. and with R. R. as the rapporteur, clarifies that not every injury in service is sufficient; a direct connection with the hazardous nature of the duties is required.

The Firefighter's Case

Order No. 16669/2025 concerns the appeal by G. B. against M. A firefighter was injured falling from a gate while rescuing a dog. The Supreme Court confirmed the dismissal, reasoning that the injuries were "entirely attributable to the rescuer's own bodily movement." The incident was not linked to the "typical risk" of the activity.

For the recognition of "duty victim" status, pursuant to Article 1, paragraph 563, of Law No. 266 of 2005, it is not sufficient for the public employee to have sustained injuries as a result of events occurring during one of the activities specified in letters a), b), c), d), e), and f) of the aforementioned Article 1. It is also necessary that the event from which the injury arose constitutes, in turn, a concretization of the special hazardousness and/or the typical risk of those specific activities. (In application of this principle, the Supreme Court confirmed the appealed judgment, which had held that the injuries sustained by a firefighter, who fell from a gate during the rescue operations of a dog trapped there, were entirely attributable to the rescuer's own bodily movement).

This maxim is fundamental: the Court of Cassation requires the "concretization of the special hazardousness and/or the typical risk" of the activities, not a mere "occasion of service." The incident must directly stem from the specific danger of the duties. The firefighter's case illustrates this distinction.

Generic Risk vs. Specific Risk

The Order reiterates the distinction between "generic risk" and "specific risk" of duty (see also Order No. 34299/2024). The injury must arise from risks intrinsically linked to the hazardous nature of the work.

• Injuries during police or rescue operations.

Accidents due to distraction or autonomous bodily movement do not fall under this category.

Conclusions

Order No. 16669/2025 is crucial: protection as a "duty victim" is not automatic for every injury in service. It requires a direct causal link between the injurious event and the concretization of a specific and typical risk of the duties.