Dismissal for Just Cause (Giusta Causa) in Italy: What Counts and What Procedure Applies

Giusta causa is the gravest ground for dismissal in Italian law, and «licenziamento per giusta causa» is usually searched by someone on one side or the other of a dismissal they believe crossed that line. The label alone decides whether any notice is owed at all.

This page covers what actually meets the giusta causa threshold, how it differs from the lesser giustificato motivo soggettivo, and, at its centre, the disciplinary procedure an employer must run before a giusta causa dismissal is lawful, even when the underlying conduct genuinely happened. For the wider map of dismissal grounds, regimes and deadlines, see dismissal in Italy.

Information verified on 20 July 2026. This page provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice for an individual situation.

What giusta causa actually means

Art. 2119 c.c. sets a deliberately high bar. It describes giusta causa as «una causa che non consenta la prosecuzione, anche provvisoria, del rapporto», a cause that does not allow the relationship to continue, even on a provisional basis. The test is not simply seriousness; it is whether the conduct makes it impossible for the relationship to go on at all, even for the length of an ordinary notice period.

Where giusta causa genuinely exists, it displaces the ordinary notice rule in art. 2118 c.c. entirely. The dismissal takes effect immediately, and the employer owes no preavviso and no indennità sostitutiva in its place.

Giusta causa vs giustificato motivo soggettivo: a question of degree

Both grounds concern the worker's own conduct, and they sit on the same spectrum rather than in two unrelated categories.

Giustificato motivo soggettivo (art. 3, L. 604/1966) is a notevole inadempimento, a notable breach of the worker's contractual obligations, that falls short of making the relationship impossible to continue even provisionally. It still requires notice.

Giusta causa requires more: conduct grave enough to break the fiduciary bond, the trust, that the employment relationship depends on, to the point that even a provisional continuation is untenable.

In practice, courts weigh several things together when placing conduct on one side of that line or the other: the objective gravity of the act, the worker's intent or degree of fault, whether trust in the relationship survives it, proportionality between the conduct and the sanction sought, and, very often, how the applicable CCNL's own disciplinary code (codice disciplinare) classifies the same type of conduct. A CCNL that lists a category of conduct alongside a lesser sanction is a real signal against treating the same conduct as giusta causa, though it does not bind a court on its own.

Whichever ground the employer relies on, art. 5, L. 604/1966 puts the burden of proof on the employer, not on the worker. A worker does not have to prove their own innocence; the employer has to prove the ground it invoked actually existed.

The disciplinary procedure that must come first: art. 7, L. 300/1970

This is the part of a giusta causa dismissal that decides most real disputes, because it applies regardless of how clear-cut the underlying conduct looks.

The rules have to be public. The employer's disciplinary rules, the conduct that can be sanctioned and the procedure for contesting it, must be made known to workers, typically by posting them somewhere accessible to everyone.

A specific written contestazione comes first. Before any disciplinary measure, the employer must notify the worker in writing of the specific conduct alleged against them, and the worker must be heard in their own defence before any sanction is applied.

A five day wait is mandatory. In every case, no disciplinary measure more serious than a verbal warning, including a giusta causa dismissal, can be applied until five days have passed from the written contestazione. That window exists precisely so the worker has a real opportunity to respond.

The worker may be assisted. The worker can ask to be assisted by a representative of the union they belong to or have given a mandate to, during that response.

Lesser sanctions are capped. Where the sanction is not dismissal, a multa (fine) cannot exceed four hours of base pay, and a sospensione (suspension) cannot exceed 10 days.

Conciliazione is available. A worker who has already had a sanction applied can, within the following 20 days, seek the constitution of a conciliation and arbitration board through the local labour office. The sanction remains suspended until that board rules.

Old sanctions stop counting. A disciplinary sanction, once applied, can no longer be taken into account for any purpose, including as an aggravating factor weighed against the worker in a later disciplinary matter, once two years have passed since it was applied.

One timing detail is worth knowing precisely: where a giusta causa dismissal follows this procedure, its effect dates from the day the disciplinary process was opened, meaning the day of the written contestazione, under an amendment introduced by L. 92/2012. Any right the worker may have to notice, or to its substitute indennità, is unaffected by that timing rule; the point only fixes when the termination itself takes effect.

Why the procedure matters even when the misconduct was real

This is the single most useful thing this page can tell a reader. Italian courts treat the substantive question, did the conduct meet the giusta causa threshold, and the procedural question, did the employer follow art. 7, as two separate conditions that both have to be satisfied.

A dismissal for conduct that genuinely happened, and that would clearly meet the giusta causa standard, can still be found unlawful if the employer skipped the written contestazione, dismissed before the five-day window closed, or dismissed for something outside what the original contestazione actually described. The procedure is not paperwork on top of the substance; it is an independent requirement, and failing it exposes the employer to the same remedies as a substantively unjustified dismissal.

When the CCNL's own disciplinary code already answers the question

The applicable CCNL, and the company's own codice disciplinare where one exists, often lists categories of worker conduct alongside the sanction each one carries, and not every category on that list reaches dismissal. Some are marked out for a sanzione conservativa instead, a lesser measure such as a fine or a suspension that keeps the relationship in place.

For workers hired before 7 March 2015 and covered by art. 18 of the Statuto, this matters directly. Where a court finds that the conduct actually alleged, even if it genuinely happened, falls within a category the CCNL or codice disciplinare punishes only with a sanzione conservativa, the court treats a dismissal over that conduct the same way it treats a dismissal for a fact that never happened at all: reinstatement follows, under the fourth comma of art. 18, alongside the same capped indennità risarcitoria. Whether the same result carries through in full to a Jobs Act dismissal for a worker hired from 7 March 2015 is a narrower, more contested question, which is one more reason the hire-date distinction covered on our dismissal overview page is not a technicality.

This is exactly why the CCNL's own classification is not just background colour when a giusta causa dismissal is being weighed. It is often the closest thing to a written, negotiated answer to how serious the industry itself treats a given act, and courts read it accordingly.

The consequences of getting it wrong

A giusta causa dismissal that a court finds unjustified, whether on the substance or on the procedure, follows the same two hire-date regimes covered on our dismissal overview page: reinstatement only in the narrow situations described there, most relevantly where the alleged conduct is shown never to have happened at all, and otherwise a judge-set indemnity within the applicable statutory band. See dismissal in Italy for the full table of remedies by hire date. No formula computes the figure for a specific reader, and no page can promise one.

What a licenziamento in tronco does and does not change

Giusta causa dismissal is often called licenziamento in tronco, a summary dismissal, because it takes effect immediately. Two things change, and one important thing does not.

No notice is owed. Art. 2119 c.c. displaces the ordinary art. 2118 c.c. notice rule entirely, so neither a working notice period nor pay in place of it is due.

The effective date runs from the contestazione, not from a later decision date, once the art. 7 procedure has been properly opened, as described above.

TFR is still owed. Under art. 2120 c.c., trattamento di fine rapporto is due «in ogni caso di cessazione del rapporto di lavoro subordinato», in any case of termination of a subordinate employment relationship. It is deferred pay the worker already earned during the relationship, not a benefit that depends on why the relationship ended. Giusta causa changes the notice question; it does not touch TFR.

Four worked scenarios

Theft from the till, dismissed the same day with no written contestazione

An employee is caught taking cash from the register. The employer dismisses them on the spot, verbally, with no written contestazione and no five-day wait. Even if the theft is entirely proven later, the dismissal can still be successfully challenged on procedural grounds alone, because the steps in art. 7, L. 300/1970 were skipped. That exposes the employer to the same remedies as an unjustified dismissal under whichever hire-date regime applies.

A physical threat, handled correctly

An employee physically threatens a colleague. The employer suspends them the same day, issues a specific written contestazione describing exactly what happened, waits the mandatory five days, holds a hearing at which the worker, assisted by a union representative, responds, and only then dismisses for giusta causa, with the termination effective from the date of the original contestazione. Because both the substance (conduct grave enough to break the fiduciary bond) and the procedure were satisfied, the dismissal stands on solid ground.

Insulting the employer on social media

A worker posts angry comments about their employer on a personal social media account, outside working hours. Whether this meets the giusta causa threshold, the lesser giustificato motivo soggettivo, or no valid ground at all, turns on proportionality: the content and reach of the post, whether it damaged the employer's reputation or business relationships, and how the applicable CCNL's disciplinary code treats comparable conduct. This is exactly the kind of borderline case a general information page cannot resolve for one specific post; it is precisely where courts weigh gravity and trust rather than applying a fixed rule.

A lesser sanction and conciliazione

A worker receives an eight day sospensione for a disciplinary infraction, short of dismissal, and requests conciliazione within the 20-day window. The sanction remains suspended while the conciliation and arbitration board considers it. This illustrates the internal route that exists alongside, and is distinct from, the ordinary 60 and 180 day impugnazione route described below, which applies once an actual dismissal, rather than a lesser sanction, is at stake.

Challenging a giusta causa dismissal

The same deadlines apply to a giusta causa dismissal as to any other dismissal under art. 6, L. 604/1966: 60 days from receiving the written dismissal to challenge it in any written form, then a further 180 days to file with the tribunale or open conciliation. See dismissal in Italy for the full walk-through, including the extended window the Corte Costituzionale recognised for a worker who was incapace di intendere o di volere during that period.