home > Working papers > WP CSDLE M. D'ANTONA > WP CSDLE M. D'ANTONA-IT > Licenziamento per motivi economici illegittimo, “manifesta insussistenza” e reintegrazione nell’art. 18 dello Statuto dei lavoratori: il legislatore scrive “può”, la Corte costituzionale sostituisce con “deve”
04/03/2021

Licenziamento per motivi economici illegittimo, “manifesta insussistenza” e reintegrazione nell’art. 18 dello Statuto dei lavoratori: il legislatore scrive “può”, la Corte costituzionale sostituisce con “deve”

WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT – 436/2021



Il presente articolo anticipa il commento alla sentenza della Corte costituzionale anticipata nel Comunicato del 24 febbraio che sarà pubblicato sul n. 2/2021 di LavoroDirittiEuropa



This article is a first commentary on the decision handed down by the Constitutional Court in closed sessio on 24 February 2021, which upheld the question of the legitimacy of Article 18, paragraph 7, second sentence of the Workers' Statute raised by the Tribunal of Ravenna, finding a conflict between the censured provision, "insofar as it provides for the right and not the duty of the judge to reinstate the employee arbitrarily dismissed in the absence of objective justification" and Article 3 of the Constitution. Therefore, if the judge finds that the reasons for the dismissal are manifestly unfounded, he will no longer be able to choose whether to order the employer to pay compensation or to reinstate the employee, but will have to apply the latter protection. The decision is therefore criticised from a legal point of view as, once again after rulings no. 194 of 2018 and no. 150 of 2020, the Constitutional Court intervenes "politically" on a precise legislative choice, removing a clear and intelligible parameter. The argumentation process is not convincing either, since the reasoning shifts from the legitimacy of the mandatory protection to the reasonableness of the differentiated treatment between economic dismissal and disciplinary dismissal. In conclusion, the immediate impact of the ruling and the possible "reflex" effects on the rules of the incremental-protection employment contract are examined.

author(s): Pellacani, Giuseppe
Creative Commons License