Ubi ius, ibi remedium

The Court of Rome, in Ruling No. 3386 of March 5, 2026, addressed medical malpractice regarding nosocomial infections contracted during hospitalization. The decision clarifies that while the patient must prove the causal link between the hospital stay and the infection, the burden shifts to the healthcare facility to prove the diligent adoption of all prevention and sanitization protocols. The Court ruled that generic defenses based on the inevitability of infectious risk are insufficient; hospitals must provide rigorous documentary evidence concerning the sterility of environments and medical devices to avoid liability. This approach reinforces the duty of risk management and requires analytical documentation of hospital hygiene procedures to prevent successful compensation claims.

The Supreme Court of Cassation confirms that a criminal acquittal does not automatically exclude disciplinary dismissal. Employers may independently assess conduct emerging from criminal proceedings, provided due process is respected. The ruling highlights the autonomy between criminal and disciplinary liability and clarifies the limits of using criminal evidence in employment disputes.

In Ordinance No. 3146/2026, the Supreme Court of Cassation clarifies that disciplinary dismissal is only lawful in cases of "notable breach." The Court emphasizes that "just cause" is an elastic concept requiring a case-by-case analysis of proportionality, taking into account the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) and the specific context of the employee's conduct.

The Supreme Court of Cassation, with ordinance no. 3145 of February 12, 2026, has upheld the nullity of a dismissal issued to an employee who refused to work in premises that were unsuitable and hazardous to health. The ruling clarifies that refusing to perform professional duties constitutes a legitimate exercise of the "exception of non-performance" (Art. 1460 c.c.) when the employer breaches their fundamental safety obligations under Art. 2087 of the Civil Code. Regarding the burden of proof, the Court established that while the worker must only allege the existence of a risk, the employer must demonstrate the actual suitability of the work environment. This decision reinforces protections against retaliatory termination by identifying dismissals based on absences provoked by the employer's own failure to provide safe working conditions as null and void.

The Court of Modena, with ruling no. 56 of January 9, 2026, addressed the issue of disciplinary dismissal under the "increasing protections" regime (Jobs Act), establishing a pivotal principle for employee protection. The judgment clarifies that reinstatement protection (tutela reintegratoria) applies not only when the alleged misconduct did not historically occur, but also when the contested fact lacks any disciplinary relevance. In this specific case, informal communications with clients, not barred by explicit company directives, were found insufficient to support a dismissal for cause. The judge identified a substantive defect, affirming that the absence of severity and the lack of proportionality between the sanction and the charge lead to the annulment of the dismissal and the restoration of the employment relationship. This decision underscores that the "non-existence of the material fact" must be interpreted in a legal sense, ensuring reinstatement whenever the conduct is harmless or falls outside the disciplinary scope defined by the National Collective Labor Agreement (CCNL).

The Supreme Court, with Ordinance No. 1212 of January 20, 2026, has reaffirmed the strict methodological requirements for recognizing higher duties and the corresponding salary differentials. The Court clarified that trial judges cannot rely solely on witness testimony but must apply the "three-phase procedure." This process requires a factual assessment of the duties performed, an analysis of the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) classifications, and a precise comparison between the two. The ruling emphasizes that the absence of such a comparative analysis results in a failure to prove the right to a higher job classification, leading to the appeal being upheld in favor of the employer. This principle serves as a key benchmark for managing litigation regarding professional grading and reclassification.