Reimbursement of Legal Expenses for Public Employees: Clarifications from Cassation Order No. 15279/2025

The issue of reimbursement of legal expenses for public employees involved in legal proceedings due to actions taken in the performance of their duties has always been a delicate point and a potential source of conflict between the employee and their employing administration. While the Public Administration has a duty to protect and assist its employees, it cannot disregard principles of sound management and control of public spending. In this context, Order No. 15279 of 09/06/2025 from the Court of Cassation, Labor Section, serves as an important clarification, defining the boundaries within which such reimbursement is due, with particular reference to the choice of legal counsel.

The Context: When a Public Employee Faces Court Proceedings

It is not uncommon for an employee of a local authority to face accusations or legal proceedings, both civil and criminal, for conduct undertaken in the exercise of their duties. In such cases, legislation and collective bargaining agreements generally provide that the employing authority may cover legal expenses, based on the principle that the employee acts in the interest and on behalf of the administration. However, this assistance is not unconditional and requires adherence to specific procedures.

The central issue often revolves around the method of selecting legal counsel and the interaction between the employee and the authority before and during the legal proceedings. This is where the Order in question sheds definitive light on a crucial aspect.

The Cassation Ruling: A Limit to the Unilateral Choice of Counsel

The case examined by the Supreme Court involved M. and C., in an appeal originating from a ruling by the Court of Appeal of Caltanissetta dated 24/12/2020. The Cassation Court was called upon to rule on the legitimacy of the rejection of the request for reimbursement of legal expenses filed by an employee of a local authority. The core of the dispute lay in the fact that the employee had unilaterally chosen their legal counsel, only informing the authority of this choice at a later stage.

The Supreme Court, with its Order No. 15279/2025, rejected the appeal, confirming the stance previously expressed in earlier rulings. The summary principle that encapsulates this is as follows:

In matters of legal assistance expenses for local authority employees for actions taken in the performance of their service, the public administration is not obliged to reimburse such expenses if the employee has unilaterally chosen their legal counsel, even if they have informed the administration of this choice.

This statement is of fundamental importance. It means that even if the employee acted in good faith and informed the administration of their appointment of legal counsel for a matter related to their service, such notification is insufficient to impose an obligation on the administration to reimburse if the choice of counsel was made unilaterally. The underlying reason lies in the necessity for the Public Administration to exercise control over the selection of legal counsel, not only for economic reasons (cost containment) but also to assess the appropriateness and defense strategy, which could have direct repercussions on the image and interests of the authority itself. The National Collective Labor Agreement (CCNL) of 14/09/2000, Article 28, is often cited as a normative reference in this regard, emphasizing that legal assistance is subject to precise conditions and procedures that imply the administration's prior involvement.

Practical Implications for Employees and Administrations

This order has clear implications for both parties:

• For Employees: It is essential that, should they require legal assistance for matters related to their service, they do not independently appoint legal counsel. Instead, they must promptly engage their employing administration, following internal procedures and those provided by collective bargaining agreements. Prior involvement is key to ensuring potential reimbursement.
• For Administrations: The ruling strengthens their position in requiring adherence to internal and contractual procedures for managing legal expenses. The authority has the right and duty to evaluate the request for assistance, potentially designating its own legal counsel or approving the employee's choice, before expenses are incurred.

The absence of an agreement or prior authorization renders the choice of legal counsel a personal decision of the employee, with the consequence that the related expenses will remain their responsibility, regardless of whether the actions were pertinent to their service activities.

The Regulatory Framework and Previous Case Law

The stance expressed by the Cassation Court with Order No. 15279/2025 is not entirely new but consolidates an already established principle. The order itself refers to previous consistent rulings, such as No. 25976 of 2017 (Rv. 646118-01), demonstrating a consolidated interpretive line. This underscores the importance of a consistent and shared practice that favors dialogue and consultation between the employee and the administration from the earliest stages of any potential legal proceeding.

Conclusions: The Importance of Constructive Dialogue

Order No. 15279/2025 of the Court of Cassation clearly reiterates that the public employee's right to reimbursement of legal expenses for service-related matters is not automatic or unconditional. It is crucial that the choice of legal counsel occurs within a framework of shared decision-making and authorization by the administration, which must be involved proactively and in advance in the decision-making process. Acting unilaterally, even with subsequent notification, exposes the employee to the risk of not having the reimbursement recognized. Therefore, collaboration and adherence to internal and external legal procedures are essential elements to ensure the protection of both the employee and the interests of the Public Administration.