Case Law

Court of Cassation, third civil section, with sentence no. 3959/12 filed on March 13, 2012, confirmed the validity of the notification sent to the former company registered office, should not the transfer of the registered office in a different province, though remarked on the company certificate issued by the Chamber of Commerce, have been announced also through the deletion of the former registered office from the Register of the Companies.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 8555/12, stated the liability for the crimes of robbery and damage in the case the employee deletes or damages company files, being irrelevant the following recovery of the items through the intervention on payment of a specialized technician.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 1411 of January 31, 2012, restated that, in the case an employee obtains the conversion of a fixed term employment contract into an open-ended one, he/she is not entitled anymore to receive an amount by way of damages equal to the wages he/she should have received in the period included between the termination of the relationship and the sentence.

Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 2419/2012, stated that employer who has intention to exercise of the contributive exemption on kilometers reimbursements to the employee is not obliged to give an analytical proof throughout a monthly sheet or other similar document.

Court of Appeal of Rome, with sentence no. 267/2012, stated that employees who obtain the conversion of a fixed-term contract into an open-ended term contract are entitled to two kind of damages: indemnity in lieu of notice period set by the so called “Collegato Lavoro” and a further damage, i.e. an amount equal to the salary the employee would have accrued from the date of the filing of the judicial appeal to that of the sentence.

Court of Cassation, criminal section, with sentence no. 5420/2012, stated that the missed drafting of the document concerning the risks assessment, so called “DUVRI - Documento unico di valutazione dei rischi”, with the related missed risks assessment arisen from work interferences between the employees of the principal and those ones of the contractor, is a circumstance which entails liabilities itself, in the case of injury.

The Court of Cassation, with sentence No. 1462 of December 20th, 2011, has stated that the damages compensation which has to be paid to the employee, in the case of reintegration in the workplace as a result of unfair dismissal, has to include not only the period between the date of dismissal and the retirement but also the subsequent periods.

The Court of Padova, labour section, with sentence of January 17th, 2012, stated that the supply worker’s behavior who does not challenge the contract promptly and accepts further work supply contracts is considered a tacit consent of the termination of the previous supply relationship.