January 29 2026

Covid-19 healthcare management: the Supreme Court rules on jurisdictional competence

In judgment no. 1952 of January 29, 2026, the Joint Sections of the Supreme Court addressed the sensitive issue of jurisdiction concerning the COVID-19 pandemic and the alleged mismanagement and organizational failures of the National Health Service (SSN). The Supreme Court ruled that claims for damages brought by the families of 'COVID victims' against the Public Administration fall under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Courts. This principle clarifies that the judicial review of Public Administration liability pertains to the exercise of discretionary public power, even when assessed against the standards of good faith. As a result of this ruling, proceedings already initiated before Civil Courts must be resumed (riassunti) before the competent Regional Administrative Court (TAR), establishing a clear demarcation of judicial competence in disputes arising from emergency healthcare management.

In judgment No. 1952 of January 29, 2026, the Joint Sections of the Supreme Court addressed the complex issue of jurisdiction regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and the alleged inadequate management and organization of the National Health Service (SSN). The Supreme Court ruled that claims for damages brought by the families of "Covid victims" against the Public Administration (P.A.) fall under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Courts.

This principle clarifies that the judicial review of Public Administration liability concerns the methods by which public power is exercised, even within the limits of good faith. Consequently, proceedings already initiated before Civil Courts must be resumed (riassunti) before the competent Regional Administrative Court (TAR). This decision establishes a clear boundary between judicial spheres of competence in disputes related to emergency health management.

The Context: Liability Actions for Emergency Management

The litigation stems from numerous claims for damages filed by relatives of individuals who deceased or suffered harm during the most critical phases of the pandemic. At the heart of these disputes is the alleged organizational failure of healthcare facilities and central and regional authorities, accused of failing to adopt adequate protocols or inefficiently managing the distribution of medical resources. However, the preliminary technical question concerned identifying the competent court to evaluate such conduct.

The Cassation’s Ruling: Jurisdiction Vested in Administrative Courts

With judgment No. 1952/2026, the Joint Sections established that the authority to decide on disputes linked to the organization of the National Health Service during the pandemic rests with the Administrative Judge. The Court noted that the claims formulated by private individuals do not concern mere material conduct (comportamenti materiali), but directly involve the exercise of discretionary public power related to large-scale public health planning and management.

Ratio Decidendi: Legitimate Expectation and Standards of Validity

The reasoning of the Supreme Court is based on the nature of the administrative activity under dispute. The Court clarified that any judgment on Public Administration liability cannot disregard an examination of how its power was exercised. Even when the dispute does not directly challenge the validity of a specific act, but rather the manner in which the administration acted, the external limit is represented by the rules of good faith and the protection of the citizen’s legitimate expectation (incolpevole affidamento).

However, since the management of the SSN falls within the scope of Public Administration competence in areas of exclusive jurisdiction (giurisdizione esclusiva), it is the Administrative Judge who must assess whether these standards of fairness and correctness were upheld.

Operational Implications for Patients and Families

The ruling has an immediate impact on proceedings currently pending before Civil Courts. Based on the decision of the Joint Sections, lawsuits erroneously filed before the Ordinary Judge (such as the one subject to the order, pending in Rome) must be resumed within the statutory time limits before the competent TAR.

For patients and their families, this does not result in the loss of the right to take action. Rather, it necessitates continuing the legal battle in a different venue, focusing the judicial analysis on the legitimacy of administrative action and compliance with the principles of impartiality and the proper functioning (buon andamento) of public healthcare.

Unsuitable premises and the right to refuse work: legal protections against retaliatory dismissal

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.

Read

February 19 2026

Disciplinary dismissal: reinstatement for legally irrelevant conduct

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).

Read

February 17 2026

Higher Duties and Job Classification: Supreme Court Ruling 1212/2026

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.

Read