Dismissal in Italy: Grounds, Procedure and What a Worker Can Challenge

«Licenziamento» searches almost always resolve into one of three questions: is my employer allowed to dismiss me, how much notice or compensation is owed, and how do I fight a dismissal I think is wrong. Italian law answers all three, but the answer turns heavily on one fact that many general guides skip over: when you were hired.

This page maps the whole structure. It covers the three lawful grounds for dismissal, the two compensation regimes that run side by side depending on hire date, and the strict deadlines a worker must meet to challenge a dismissal at all. A companion page goes deep on the gravest ground and the disciplinary procedure that must precede it: dismissal for just cause.

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

The three grounds for ending an employment relationship

Italian law starts from a strict list. An employer cannot dismiss a worker for any reason at all; the dismissal has to fit one of three recognised grounds, each with its own consequences for notice.

Giusta causa (art. 2119 c.c.) is the gravest ground. The statute describes it as a cause so serious that it does not allow the relationship to continue, even provisionally. Where giusta causa genuinely exists, the employer may end the relationship with immediate effect and owes no notice period at all, a licenziamento in tronco.

Absent giusta causa, the ordinary rule in art. 2118 c.c. applies: either party may end an indeterminate contract, but must give notice (preavviso), set by usage or by the applicable CCNL, or pay an indennità sostitutiva equal to what the worker would have earned during that notice period.

Giustificato motivo soggettivo and giustificato motivo oggettivo sit together in a single article, art. 3, L. 604/1966, and both require notice. Soggettivo covers a notable breach of the worker's own contractual obligations that falls short of giusta causa. Oggettivo covers reasons tied to the employer's production activity, the organisation of work, or its regular functioning, the closest Italian analogue to a redundancy dismissal.

The dismissal itself must be in writing and must state why

Under art. 2, L. 604/1966, an employer must communicate the dismissal in writing, and that communication must specify the reasons that led to it. A dismissal that skips either requirement is inefficace on that basis alone, regardless of whatever the underlying ground might otherwise have been.

Two regimes running side by side, by hire date

This is the fact that most changes what a dismissal actually costs an employer, and it depends entirely on when the worker was hired, not on the employer's size or sector alone.

Workers hired before 7 March 2015 fall under art. 18 of the Statuto dei Lavoratori (L. 300/1970), as reshaped by the Fornero reform (L. 92/2012). Workers hired from 7 March 2015 fall under the Jobs Act's tutele crescenti regime, D.Lgs. 23/2015.

The indemnity is judge set within a band, never a fixed formula

This is the point worth reading twice. The original text of art. 3, D.Lgs. 23/2015 set the indemnity for an ordinary unjustified Jobs Act dismissal at a rigid formula: two mensilità of the worker's last TFR-reference pay for every year of service. That exact wording, «di importo pari a due mensilità dell'ultima retribuzione di riferimento per il calcolo del trattamento di fine rapporto per ogni anno di servizio», was declared unconstitutional by the Corte Costituzionale in sentenza 194/2018 (26 September, 8 November 2018).

Since that ruling, the indemnity is not computed from years of service at all. A judge sets it within a statutory band, currently 6 to 36 mensilità (the band itself was raised from 4 to 24 by the Decreto Dignità, DL 87/2018 conv. L. 96/2018), weighing seniority, company size, the number of employees, and the conduct of both parties.

The old two-months-per-year formula has not been the live rule since November 2018. No calculation on this page, and no calculator anywhere, can tell a reader a guaranteed figure for their own dismissal: it is judge set, case by case, inside that band.

Reinstatement is the exception, not the rule

Reinstatement (reintegrazione) is available in a narrow set of situations under both regimes, not as the ordinary remedy for a dismissal a judge simply finds unjustified.

It applies, without exception, to discriminatory, void, or orally communicated dismissals, under art. 18, comma 1 of the Statuto and art. 2 of D.Lgs. 23/2015.

It also applies where the alleged conduct behind a giustificato motivo soggettivo or giusta causa dismissal is directly proven in court never to have happened at all (insussistenza del fatto contestato), under art. 18, comma 4 and art. 3, comma 2 of D.Lgs. 23/2015. Since a 2024 Corte Costituzionale ruling, the same narrow route now also reaches certain giustificato motivo oggettivo dismissals, where the employer's stated economic reason is shown in court never to have existed.

Outside those situations, an unjustified dismissal carries a money indemnity, not a return to the job.

Impugnazione: challenging a dismissal on two deadlines, not one

A dismissal has to be challenged on two separate clocks, both set by art. 6, L. 604/1966.

First, 60 days. From receiving the written dismissal, a worker has 60 days to challenge it, using any written act, even an extrajudicial one, sufficient to make clear that the worker intends to challenge the dismissal.

Then, 180 more days. That first step is only preserved if, within a further 180 days, the worker files with the tribunale (sezione lavoro) or opens conciliation or arbitration. If conciliation is refused or fails, a further 60 days apply to file with the court.

Missing either deadline forfeits the challenge, regardless of how strong the underlying claim might have been. The 60-day clock runs from receipt of the written communication, not from when a worker first seeks advice.

A 2025 ruling narrows one edge of that rule. Corte Cost. sent. 111/2025 (11 June, 18 July 2025) found the ordinary 60-day requirement unconstitutional as applied to a worker who was incapace di intendere o di volere, unable to understand or to exercise their own will, at the moment of receiving the dismissal or during the 60-day window itself. In that specific situation, the challenge remains timely within a combined 240 days from receipt of the dismissal.

Three worked scenarios

A 20-year employee, hired in 2009, dismissed for reorganisation

The company has 80 employees. Because the worker was hired in 2009, art. 18 of the Statuto applies, not the Jobs Act. Their role is eliminated and they are dismissed for giustificato motivo oggettivo.

If the employer proves the reorganisation was genuine, no reinstatement follows; the worker receives notice, or pay in place of it, and TFR, but no further indemnity. If a judge finds the employer's stated economic reason simply did not exist, reinstatement under the fourth comma follows; if the reason existed in some form but the dismissal is still found unjustified on balance, the remedy is the economic band of 12 to 24 mensilità.

A worker hired in 2019, dismissed for conduct the employer cannot prove happened

The company has 25 employees, above the small-employer threshold, so the ordinary Jobs Act rules apply. The worker is dismissed for giustificato motivo soggettivo over an alleged incident. At trial, the employer cannot establish that the incident happened at all; under art. 5, L. 604/1966, that burden was always the employer's to carry.

The court finds insussistenza del fatto contestato. Under art. 3, comma 2, D.Lgs. 23/2015, the judge orders reinstatement, plus an indennità risarcitoria capped at 12 mensilità and social-security contributions for the intervening period, deducting whatever the worker earned elsewhere in the meantime.

A worker hired in 2020 at a company with 9 employees, dismissed with a defective letter

The company sits below the small-employer threshold under art. 18, comma 8, so art. 9, D.Lgs. 23/2015 applies. The dismissal letter fails to specify the grounds properly, in breach of art. 2, L. 604/1966. The indemnity amounts under art. 3, comma 1 are halved for a small employer, and since Corte Cost. sent. 118/2025 removed the fixed six-month ceiling on that halved figure, the judge sets it within roughly half the ordinary band, on the same seniority and conduct factors, still with no fixed formula and no reinstatement route available at this size.

A missed deadline

A worker receives a dismissal letter on 1 March. They raise the issue informally with HR but never send anything in writing. By 30 April, 60 days have passed with no written challenge on record. The right to challenge is gone, no matter how strong the underlying claim, because the 60-day clock in art. 6, L. 604/1966 runs from receipt of the written dismissal, not from when a worker decides to act.

TFR is owed regardless of the ground for dismissal

Whichever of the three grounds ends the relationship, trattamento di fine rapporto is owed. Under art. 2120 c.c., TFR is due «in ogni caso di cessazione del rapporto di lavoro subordinato», in any case of termination of a subordinate employment relationship. It is pay already earned during the relationship and deferred to its end, not a benefit that depends on which ground applied or on who was at fault.

This page maps the whole structure of Italian dismissal law. For a full procedural walk-through of the gravest ground, and the mandatory disciplinary steps a giusta causa dismissal requires before it can lawfully take effect, see dismissal for just cause.