Judgment no. 1880 of 2025: Precautionary Suspension and Legal Prerequisites

Judgment no. 1880 of January 27, 2025, represents an important ruling by the Court of Appeal of Ancona concerning the precautionary suspension of public employees. With it, the judges clarified a fundamental aspect of public employment law, particularly regarding the legality of precautionary suspension in the absence of pending criminal proceedings.

Regulatory Context

The central issue concerns the application of Articles 10 and 11 of the national collective bargaining agreement (c.c.n.l.) for healthcare, professional, technical, and administrative management, dating back to October 17, 2008. These articles establish that the precautionary suspension of a public employee is an employer's discretionary power, but with an essential prerequisite: the pendency of criminal proceedings for the same facts contested in disciplinary proceedings.

• Precautionary suspension is optional and not automatic.
• There must be a correlation between criminal and disciplinary proceedings.
• In the absence of this prerequisite, the suspension is considered invalid.

Meaning of the Judgment

Articles 10 and 11 of the c.c.n.l. for Healthcare, Professional, Technical, and Administrative Management of October 17, 2008 - Optional precautionary suspension - Prerequisite - Pendency of criminal proceedings for the same facts contested in disciplinary proceedings - Absence - Consequences. The employer's power of optional precautionary suspension of a public employee, regulated under Articles 10 and 11 of the c.c.n.l. for Healthcare, Professional, Technical, and Administrative Management of October 17, 2008, is subject to the pendency of criminal proceedings against the worker for the same facts for which disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, so that, in the absence of this prerequisite, the suspension measure adopted is invalid.

The Court therefore reiterated that the absence of criminal proceedings renders the suspension measure null and void. This decision not only protects workers' rights but also promotes a principle of legality and justice, preventing abuses by public administration. The judgment offers an important interpretation for managing disciplinary situations, highlighting the need for a balance between public order requirements and workers' rights.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment no. 1880 of 2025 represents a significant step in defining the limits of the power of precautionary suspension against public employees. By recognizing the importance of pending criminal proceedings as a prerequisite for suspension, the Court of Appeal of Ancona stands in defense of workers' rights, thus ensuring effective legal protection. It is crucial for public administrations to strictly follow these guidelines to avoid inadequate and potentially harmful measures to individual rights.