Licenziamento Illegittimo: Categories of Unlawful Dismissal in Italy

«Licenziamento illegittimo» is a broader label than it looks. A dismissal can be unlawful in several distinct ways, and which one applies decides whether a worker can get their job back, receive a money indemnity, or both.

Our companion page maps the three lawful grounds for dismissal and the two hire date regimes in full: dismissal in Italy. This page goes a level deeper on what actually makes a dismissal illegittimo, how the remedy is worked out once it is, and the mechanics of challenging one. For the disciplinary procedure a giusta causa dismissal must follow, see dismissal for just cause.

Information verified on 21 July 2026. This page provides general legal information and does not constitute legal advice for an individual situation.

Three ways a dismissal can be illegittimo

Not every unlawful dismissal is unlawful for the same reason, and the label matters because the remedy follows it.

Nullo (void). A dismissal is void where it is discriminatory (art. 3, L. 108/1990, referring to art. 4, L. 604/1966 and art. 15, Statuto dei Lavoratori), retaliatory, timed around marriage or protected maternity and paternity leave, or otherwise falls within a case of nullity set by law. A void dismissal has no legal effect at all, whatever reason the employer formally gave, and it carries the same consequences regardless of company size.

Inefficace (ineffective). The clearest example is a dismissal communicated only orally. Art. 2, L. 604/1966 requires a dismissal in writing that states its reasons; a dismissal that skips either requirement is inefficace on that basis alone, and both regimes treat it the same way as a nullo dismissal for remedy purposes.

Ingiustificato (unjustified). This is the largest category in practice: a dismissal that was communicated properly and rests on a real ground in form, but where a court finds giusta causa or giustificato motivo was not actually made out on the facts. This is the category with the judge set indemnity band, not a fixed formula, described below.

The indemnity is judge set, never a per year formula

This is the point most worth getting right, because an outdated source will still state it wrong. The original text of art. 3, D.Lgs. 23/2015 fixed the indemnity for an ordinary unjustified Jobs Act dismissal at two mensilita of the worker's TFR reference pay for every year of service. The Corte Costituzionale declared that specific formula unconstitutional in sentenza 194/2018 (26 September, 8 November 2018).

Since that ruling, a judge sets the figure within a statutory band, currently 6 to 36 mensilita, weighing seniority, company size, the number of employees, and the conduct of both sides. The band was originally 4 to 24 mensilita in the 2015 text; the Decreto Dignita raised it to 6 to 36 in 2018. No formula computes a specific number from years of service alone, and it has not worked that way since November 2018.

At smaller employers, below the size threshold set in art. 18, comma 8 of the Statuto, the Jobs Act amounts are halved under art. 9, D.Lgs. 23/2015. Until 2025, that halved figure was also capped at a flat six mensilita no matter what. Corte Cost. sent. 118/2025 (23 June, 21 July 2025) struck down that fixed ceiling, leaving the halving itself in place but removing the flat cap sitting on top of it.

Two 2024-2025 rulings that widened reinstatement and the deadline

Corte Cost. sent. 128/2024 (4 June, 16 July 2024) addressed a gap between the two categories of dismissal that can trigger reinstatement. The insussistenza del fatto route, reinstatement where a court finds the conduct alleged against the worker was directly disproven, previously applied cleanly to giustificato motivo soggettivo and giusta causa dismissals. The Corte Costituzionale extended the same route to giustificato motivo oggettivo dismissals, where the employer's own stated economic reason for eliminating the role is shown in court to never have actually existed.

Corte Cost. sent. 111/2025 (11 June, 18 July 2025) addressed the ordinary 60 day impugnazione clock. Where a worker was incapace di intendere o di volere, unable to understand or exercise their own will, at the moment of receiving the dismissal or during the 60 day window itself, the ordinary requirement to challenge within 60 days does not apply. Instead, the challenge remains timely within a combined 240 days from receipt of the dismissal, made either by filing a ricorso, including a precautionary one, or by notifying the other side of a request for conciliation or arbitration.

How impugnazione actually works, step by step

Step one: 60 days, in writing. From receiving the written dismissal, a worker has 60 days to challenge it. Any written act is enough, even an extrajudicial one, so long as it makes clear the worker intends to challenge the dismissal. In practice this is usually a raccomandata A/R, a PEC, or a letter sent through an avvocato or a union, addressed to the employer.

Step two: a further 180 days, filed with the court or in conciliation. That first step only survives if, within a further 180 days, the worker either files a ricorso with the tribunale, sezione lavoro, or notifies the employer of a request to open conciliation or arbitration. If conciliation is refused or fails to reach an agreement, a further 60 days apply to file with the court instead.

Missing either clock forfeits the challenge, regardless of how strong the underlying claim is. The 60 day clock runs from actual receipt of the written dismissal, not from when a worker gets around to seeking advice, which is why the first, simplest written objection matters more than it looks.

Three worked scenarios

A dismissal timed around a wedding

A worker is dismissed two weeks after informing her employer of her upcoming marriage, with the letter citing a generic reorganisation. Under art. 3, L. 108/1990, a dismissal determined by discriminatory reasons is nullo regardless of the reason formally stated, and it triggers art. 18's consequences whatever the size of the employer. The remedy is reinstatement plus an indemnity of at least 5 mensilita, uncapped, and it does not matter whether she was hired before or after 7 March 2015.

A role that was never actually eliminated

A Jobs Act worker, hired in 2021, is dismissed for giustificato motivo oggettivo, with the employer stating the department was being closed. At trial, the worker shows the department continued operating unchanged and a new hire took over largely the same tasks within weeks. Before Corte Cost. sent. 128/2024, this fact pattern for an oggettivo dismissal fell outside the narrow reinstatement route. Since that ruling, the court can find the stated economic reason never existed and order reinstatement, plus an indennita risarcitoria capped at 12 mensilita, on the same insussistenza logic previously reserved for soggettivo and giusta causa cases.

A worker unable to act within 60 days

A worker is hospitalised and found by a court appointed expert to have been incapace di intendere o di volere for several weeks spanning the date a dismissal letter was delivered and the following month. No written challenge is sent within the ordinary 60 days. Under Corte Cost. sent. 111/2025, the ordinary 60 day requirement does not apply to this worker for that period, and the challenge remains timely as long as it is brought, by ricorso or by a conciliation or arbitration request, within a combined 240 days of the dismissal's receipt.

TFR and notice are separate from the illegittimo question

Whatever category a dismissal falls into, trattamento di fine rapporto is still owed, since it is due in any case of termination of employment under art. 2120 c.c. and does not depend on the dismissal being lawful or not. See TFR, Italian severance pay for how that calculation works, and dismissal in Italy for the full table of grounds, hire date regimes and remedies.