Dismissal for Objective Justified Reason: The Court of Cassation and Law 92/2012 (Judgment no. 15513/2025)

Labor law is a constantly evolving field, where jurisprudential interpretation plays a crucial role in defining the boundaries and protections of professional relationships. One of the most delicate and debated issues concerns dismissal, particularly for objective justified reason (OJR). The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, with Judgment no. 15513 of June 10, 2025 (Rv. 675593-01), offers significant clarifications on the application of Article 1, paragraph 41, of Law no. 92 of 2012, known as the Fornero Reform, regarding the determination of the termination date of the employment relationship. This decision, which saw N. (G. G.) pitted against I., quashing a previous judgment by the Court of Appeal of Florence and remanding it for retrial, proves to be of fundamental importance for employees and employers.

The Regulatory Context: the Fornero Reform and Dismissal for OJR

To fully understand the scope of the judgment under review, it is essential to recall the relevant regulatory framework. Law no. 92 of 2012 introduced important changes to the regulation of individual dismissals, particularly concerning objective justified reason. Article 1, paragraph 41, of that law outlined a specific procedure for OJR dismissals initiated by employers with more than fifteen employees, providing for a mandatory conciliation phase before the Territorial Labor Directorate. This procedural step aims to foster an agreement between the parties, possibly with the proposal of employee redeployment or the recognition of an exit incentive. The complexity lies precisely in the interaction between this conciliation procedure and the actual moment when the employment relationship is considered terminated.

The Principle of Law in Judgment 15513/2025: a Crucial Interpretation

The Court of Cassation, with ruling 15513/2025, addressed precisely this delicate issue, providing an interpretation that strengthens employee protection. Here is the principle of law expressed:

In matters of dismissal for objective justified reason, Article 1, paragraph 41, of Law no. 92 of 2012, is a provision that can be derogated from in favor of the employee (in melius), regarding the determination of the moment when the termination of the employment relationship takes effect. Therefore, it must be interpreted to mean that the employer's withdrawal takes legal effect from the commencement of the conciliation procedure, but the employee retains the right to notice. Thus, if notice has been given – in the first act of the complex factual situation (the commencement of the conciliation procedure) or in the final dismissal act – the termination takes effect upon the completion of the relevant period (even if calculated from the first act of the complex factual situation). Conversely, if notice has not been given, the employee will be entitled to the corresponding compensatory indemnity, calculated differently depending on whether the employment relationship was terminated or not at the time the conciliation procedure commenced.

This principle of law is of paramount importance. The Court of Cassation states that Article 1, paragraph 41, of Law no. 92/2012 is a norm "derogable in melius" in favor of the employee. This means that, while acknowledging that the employer's withdrawal (the intention to dismiss) takes legal effect from the commencement of the conciliation procedure, the employee does not lose the right to notice. Indeed, the judgment clarifies that the notice period, if granted, must be calculated from the first act of the "complex factual situation," i.e., from the commencement of the conciliation procedure. If notice is not given, the employee is entitled to the compensatory indemnity, the amount of which will vary depending on whether the relationship was terminated or not at the time conciliation began. This approach ensures greater economic protection for the employee, ensuring that the notice period or its compensatory indemnity is fully recognized.

Practical Implications for Employees and Employers

The consequences of this interpretation are manifold and directly affect the dynamics of employment relationships:

• For employees: The judgment strengthens the certainty of the right to notice or compensatory indemnity, anchoring the calculation to a definite point in time (the commencement of the conciliation procedure), even if the termination takes effect later. This offers greater economic protection and predictability at a delicate time such as the cessation of employment.
• For employers: It is crucial to be aware that the commencement of the conciliation procedure does not exhaust employer obligations. Notice, or its indemnity, remains an inalienable right of the employee and must be managed correctly from the initial stages of the OJR dismissal procedure. Proper management can prevent future disputes and ensure full compliance with the law.

The Court has thus reaffirmed a principle favoring the employee, interpreting the norm in a way that maximizes the protections provided, even within complex procedures such as those introduced by the Fornero Reform. The specific case, which saw N. (G. G.) pitted against I., highlights the need for scrupulous application of regulatory provisions and clear communication between the parties from the outset of the dismissal process.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty and Employee Protection

Judgment no. 15513 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in the interpretation of Article 1, paragraph 41, of Law no. 92 of 2012. It consolidates the employee's position, ensuring that the right to notice or the corresponding compensatory indemnity is fully recognized and correctly calculated, regardless of the complexity of the conciliation procedure. For employers and employees alike, this ruling underscores the importance of qualified legal advice to navigate the challenges of dismissal for objective justified reason, ensuring compliance with regulations and the protection of the rights involved. In an ever-changing economic and social landscape, legal certainty and the protection of the weaker parties in the employment relationship remain fundamental pillars of our legal system.