{"id":6431,"date":"2025-09-08T14:03:34","date_gmt":"2025-09-08T14:03:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.studiolegalecarlopisani.it\/?p=6431"},"modified":"2025-09-09T04:41:32","modified_gmt":"2025-09-09T04:41:32","slug":"6431","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.studiolegalecarlopisani.it\/en\/6431\/","title":{"rendered":"The difficult relationship between the Court of Cassation and Constitutional Court judgments nos. 128 and 129: the crisis of the authoritative precedent"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
CARLO PISANI<\/p>\n
Professor of Labour Law at the University of Rome Tor Vergata Case Law Digest of Labour Law, 2\/25<\/em><\/p>\n\n
SUMMARY.\u00a0<\/strong> 1. The potential influence of Constitutional Court judgments nos. 128 and 129 on the interpretation of Article 18 of the Workers\u2019 Statute. 2. Supreme Court rulings that entirely disregard Constitutional Court judgments nos. 128 and 129, reaffirming their opposing stance. 3. The \u201cselective\u201d reception by the Supreme Court of the interpretations provided by the Constitutional Court: a) concerning dismissals for justified objective reasons. 4. Continued. b) concerning disciplinary dismissal. 5. The difficult dialogue between the Courts in the age of \u201cliquid law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n
ABSTRACT.<\/strong> The article examines the positions taken by the Court of Cassation following Constitutional Court judgments nos. 128 and 129. What emerges is a framework of difficult dialogue between the two Courts, since the Court of Cassation continues to reaffirm its positions regarding the application of reinstatement even in cases of dismissal defects (such as the failure to reassign the employee to another suitable position and the application of a conservative sanction provided by a general clause in the collective agreement). In contrast, the Constitutional Court has offered a different interpretation, establishing that in such cases the appropriate remedy is compensation rather than reinstatement.<\/p>\n\n