A recent Supreme Court judgment distinguishes between formal reinstatement and the effective restoration of employment.
CASE LAW | Italian Supreme Court, judgment no. 24981 of 3 September 2026
When an Italian dismissal is declared unlawful and reinstatement is ordered, the employment relationship is legally restored. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the employee must repay the NASpI unemployment allowance received after dismissal.
In judgment no. 24981/2026, the Supreme Court confirmed that the decisive question is whether employment has been restored in practice, including its economic effects. A judicial order producing only a formal restoration of the relationship does not automatically eliminate the employee’s entitlement to NASpI. The court hearing the case must therefore determine whether the employment and remuneration relationship was effectively re-established.
The judgment addresses a second, distinct situation. Under Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute, a reinstated employee may choose an indemnity equal to 15 months’ salary instead of returning to work. According to the Supreme Court, that choice voluntarily terminates the employment relationship and does not entitle the employee to NASpI for the subsequent period.
For international employers, the practical message is that a reinstatement order cannot be managed as a merely procedural development. Delays or failures in restoring employment and its financial consequences may affect both the employer’s exposure and the employee’s social-security position.
Practical point. Following a reinstatement judgment, the company should document promptly whether and when the employee was invited back, payroll was restored and the judgment’s financial obligations were fulfilled.