Commentary on Judgment No. 1534 of 2024: False Attestations and Employee Liability

Judgment No. 1534 of 26 November 2024, filed on 14 January 2025, by the Court of Appeal of Lecce, offers an important reflection on the issue of false attestations in the workplace, particularly in relation to Article 55-quinquies of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001. This decision is part of an increasingly attentive legal context to the protection of public faith and the responsibility of employees in compliance with current regulations.

Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The regulation referred to by the judgment in question punishes false attestations or certifications, constituting a crime of particular gravity due to its impact on trust in employment relationships. In particular, the Court emphasized that "other fraudulent means" should be understood broadly, including any deceptive conduct that could mislead a subject, even if not directly involved in the crime.

Crime of false attestations or certifications under Article 55-quinquies of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001 - Objective element - "Other fraudulent means" - Notion - Indication - Factual circumstances. In the context of false attestations or certifications, under Article 55-quinquies of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 30 March 2001, the "other fraudulent means" referred to in the criminal provision are constituted by any deceptive activity, qualified or unqualified, capable of placing a subject in a state of error or simple ignorance, not necessarily coinciding with the passive subject. (Factual circumstances relating to the omission of an intermediate "clocking out" stamp, in which the Court specified that, with such conduct, affecting the content of the work performance, the employee, by falsely appearing to be present at the workplace, conceals from the public employer the arbitrary absence from service).

Implications of the Judgment

The Court clarified that the employee's conduct, consisting of the omission of the intermediate clocking, was considered sufficiently serious to constitute fraudulent behaviour. This is particularly relevant in a work context, where physical presence and adherence to working hours are essential to ensure the regularity of the work performance. The absence of correct clocking not only misleads the employer but also undermines the mutual trust, which is fundamental in the employment relationship.

• The employee must be aware of the legal consequences of their actions.
• The employer has the right to know the truth about the presence of their employees.
• Trust is a crucial element in any working relationship.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 1534 of 2024 highlights the importance of transparency and correctness in employment relationships. The Court of Appeal of Lecce, through this decision, not only reiterates the principle that any deceptive conduct is punishable but also emphasizes the need for greater awareness on the part of employees regarding their responsibilities. It is therefore essential that both employers and employees understand the seriousness of false attestations and their impact not only on the individual employment relationship but on the entire system of trust that governs the labour market.