Ubi ius, ibi remedium

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in ruling no. 10741 of April 23, 2026, has clarified the evidentiary standards for vaccine compensation under Law 210/1992. The Court established that the causal link between the vaccine and the onset of a permanent pathology does not require absolute scientific certainty, but rather satisfies the civil standard of "more likely than not." By emphasizing temporal proximity and the absence of alternative causes (differential diagnosis), the ruling protects the rights of injured parties even in the absence of broad epidemiological consensus. This decision provides a vital precedent, shifting the focus from abstract statistics to individual clinical history, thereby ensuring effective protection of health rights within the framework of public vaccination programs.

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.