Personal relationships between employees and superiors in the public sector: Court of Cassation ordinance no. 29094/2025

In the landscape of privatized public employment, the boundary between the private sphere of employees and the impartiality duties of the Public Administration often represents slippery ground. Recently, the Court of Cassation revisited this delicate balance with ordinance no. 29094 of November 4, 2025. The ruling addresses the relevance of personal, non-work-related relationships between an employee (in this specific case, G. M.) and their hierarchical superior, drawing a clear line between normal daily office life and selective procedures for the assignment of significant roles.

The general rule and the exception in selective procedures

In general, the existence of personal relationships or friendships outside the workplace between colleagues or between a subordinate and a superior does not invalidate the legitimacy of ordinary management acts. However, this principle encounters an impassable limit when it comes to discretionary selective procedures. When the Public Administration must assign significant roles, such as organizational positions, the constitutional principles of impartiality and sound administration (Art. 97 of the Constitution) come into play, combined with the private law duties of fairness and good faith (Arts. 1175 and 1375 of the Civil Code).

In such cases, the selection must be transparent and beyond any suspicion. To ensure this, the Court of Cassation extends the applicability of the guarantees provided by Article 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the recusal of a judge.

The principle of law established by the Court of Cassation

To fully understand the scope of this decision, it is useful to read the principle of law expressed by the judges of legitimacy:

In the context of privatized public employment, the existence of lawful personal, non-work-related relationships between an employee and a superior is not relevant for the purpose of evaluating the conduct of the parties involved and the legitimacy of management acts, except in the case of selections involving discretionary evaluations of candidates for the assignment of significant roles (such as that of an organizational position), in which the Public Administration, in accordance with the principles of good faith and fairness, must ensure the impartiality of those responsible for the selection, applying the rules set forth in Art. 51 c.p.c., including the atypical hypothesis under paragraph 2, which requires avoiding the adoption of a decision by anyone who has a personal relationship with an individual of such intensity as to raise suspicion that the judgment is not based on compliance with the aforementioned principles.

The Supreme Court clarifies that the obligation to recuse arises not only in typical cases of kinship or serious enmity but also in the presence of a friendship so intense that it undermines the perception of impartiality in the selection. This is the so-called "atypical hypothesis" provided for by the second paragraph of Art. 51 c.p.c., which mandates recusal in the presence of serious reasons of propriety.

Practical implications for the Public Administration

The Court of Cassation's ruling highlights the importance of adopting adequate precautions within public administrations during selection procedures. In particular, the following aspects must be monitored:

• Transparency of criteria: Selection criteria must be objective and predetermined, minimizing the scope for purely subjective evaluations.
• Duty of recusal: A hierarchical superior who maintains a close friendship or frequent association with one of the candidates has a duty to recuse themselves from the selection committee.
• Protection of internal competition: Ensuring equal professional growth opportunities for all employees, neutralizing favoritism.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ordinance no. 29094/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important benchmark for personnel management in the public sector. While on one hand the freedom of employees to maintain normal and lawful personal relationships outside working hours is safeguarded, on the other hand, the principle of impartiality of administrative action is strongly reaffirmed. When deciding on the assignment of a significant role, the neutrality of the evaluator must be absolute and indisputable, in order to protect merit and the trust of citizens in public institutions.