Written Hearing in Labor Proceedings: Conditions Dictated by the Supreme Court in Ruling No. 17603/2025

Italian civil proceedings, and particularly labor proceedings, have undergone significant reforms in recent years, often aimed at efficiency and digitalization. Among the most discussed innovations is the possibility of replacing the discussion hearing with the mere filing of written briefs. A recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Ruling No. 17603 of June 30, 2025, has clearly and precisely addressed this sensitive issue, offering a fundamental interpretation on the application of Article 127-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure (in its version prior to the amendments introduced by Legislative Decree No. 164 of 2024). This decision, which involved N. V. versus L. G. as parties, rejecting the appeal against the Court of Appeal of Trento, provides essential guidelines for lawyers and legal professionals.

Replacing Hearings with Written Briefs: An Evolving Regulatory Context

The introduction of the judge's option to conduct hearings through the filing of written briefs, instead of the physical presence of the parties, was one of the responses to the need to contain contagion during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also an attempt to rationalize procedural times. However, this method has raised numerous questions regarding respect for the fundamental principles of the proceedings, foremost among them the right to adversarial proceedings and defense. Ruling 17603/2025 fits into this debate, clarifying the limits and conditions of such practice, especially in labor proceedings, which by their nature are characterized by strong orality and immediacy.

In labor proceedings, the measure by which a judge, pursuant to Article 127-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure (in the version preceding the amendments of Legislative Decree No. 164 of 2024), replaces the hearing intended for the discussion of the case with the filing of written briefs, is admissible provided that: I) the replacement does not concern the discussion hearing in its entirety, but only the strictly decision-making procedural phase; II) none of the parties object to such replacement; III) it is not excluded that the written briefs contain (or can contain), in addition to conclusions and requests, also arguments for defense, so as to fulfill the technical function of replacing orality; IV) should the procedural process require clarification based on the concrete situation, the dialogue between the parties and the judge is re-established in function of the principle of adversarial proceedings and the right to defense.

The above summary, extracted from Ruling No. 17603/2025, is of fundamental importance because it crystallizes the boundaries within which the judge's option to convert an oral hearing into a written one can be exercised. The Court of Cassation, with this ruling, presided over by Dr. D'Ascola and with Dr. Terrusi as rapporteur, emphasizes that such a replacement cannot be indiscriminate. In particular, point I) clarifies that the replacement must be limited to the "strictly decision-making procedural phase," preserving orality for evidentiary phases or those requiring direct interaction. Point II) introduces a crucial element: the need for the parties' consent. If even one party objects, the replacement is not admissible, thus safeguarding the parties' will and their right to an oral discussion. Point III) insists on the completeness of the written briefs, which must not be a mere list of conclusions but genuine defense pleadings capable of replacing oral discussion. Finally, point IV) is an essential safeguard clause: the judge must always be prepared to re-establish dialogue and an oral hearing if the concrete situation requires it, in accordance with the principles of adversarial proceedings and the right to defense, pillars of any fair trial, recognized also at the constitutional level (Articles 24 and 111 of the Constitution) and European level (Article 6 of the ECHR).

Essential Conditions for Admissibility

The Supreme Court, therefore, does not completely close the door to written hearings but subordinates them to precise conditions aimed at protecting the parties' rights. Let's summarize them:

• Limitation to the decision-making phase: The replacement cannot concern the entire hearing but only the final moment of discussion and decision, preserving orality for the phases of evidence gathering or preliminary clarifications.
• Lack of opposition from the parties: The judge cannot impose the replacement if one of the parties expresses their opposition. This aspect highlights the importance of consent and the freedom to choose defense methods.
• Completeness of written briefs: The briefs must be a complete vehicle for defense arguments, not just for conclusions. They must, in practice, replicate the function of oral discussion.
• Re-establishment of dialogue in case of necessity: If clarification or in-depth examination needs arise that only an oral exchange can satisfy, the judge must be able to re-establish an in-person hearing, ensuring the full exercise of adversarial proceedings.

These conditions reflect a deep attention to the principles of a fair and just process, seeking a balance between the need for speed and the indispensable defense guarantees.

The Principle of Adversarial Proceedings and the Right to Defense: Indispensable Pillars

The core of the Supreme Court's ruling lies in the reaffirmation of the principles of adversarial proceedings and the right to defense. Article 127-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure, in its previous wording, allowed for a flexibility that, if not interpreted correctly, could have undermined these fundamental rights. The Court, also referencing constitutional jurisprudence and European regulatory references, reiterates that any procedural innovation must be compatible with the full exercise of the parties' defenses. The hearing, even if only for discussion, represents a crucial moment for procedural dialectic. Its replacement with written briefs must be a functional alternative, not a compression, and must always allow the parties to fully express their arguments and respond to those of the opposing party, as well as allow the judge to grasp every nuance useful for the decision.

Conclusions: A Delicate Balance Between Efficiency and Guarantees

Ruling No. 17603 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a firm point in jurisprudence regarding the application of Article 127-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure in labor proceedings. It clarifies that the pursuit of efficiency and simplification cannot and must not compromise the fundamental guarantees of a fair trial. Written hearings are admissible, but only under specific and stringent conditions that preserve the right to adversarial proceedings, defense, and the full expression of the parties' arguments. It is a warning to judges to carefully evaluate each individual case and to parties to assert their procedural rights, contributing to maintaining a delicate, but essential, balance between speed and substantive justice in our legal system.