Analysis of Judgment No. 8745 of 2024: Disciplinary Sanctions in Public Employment

The recent judgment No. 8745 of April 3, 2024, by the Court of Cassation has raised important questions regarding the disciplinary power in contractual public employment. In particular, the Court addressed the application of disciplinary sanctions, distinguishing between conservative sanctions and expulsion sanctions, and clarifying the boundaries of the substantive ne bis in idem prohibition. But what does all this mean for public employees and employers?

The Context of the Judgment

The case examined by the Court involved a part-time employee of a municipality, responsible for the building amnesty office, who had violated the rules on conflicts of interest. The employee was initially sanctioned with a conservative sanction, but was subsequently dismissed with an expulsion sanction for similar but distinct contested facts. The Court upheld the legitimacy of the dismissal, ruling that there was no violation of the ne bis in idem principle.

The Principle of Ne Bis in Idem

Contractual public employment - Exercise of disciplinary power with conservative sanction - Subsequent application of expulsion sanction - Same nature of the charges - Diversity of the contested facts - Violation of the substantive "ne bis in idem" - Non-existence - Case.

The principle of ne bis in idem prohibits sanctioning a person multiple times for the same conduct. However, in the case at hand, the contested facts were different, even though they involved similar conduct. The Court reiterated that it is possible to apply an expulsion sanction after a conservative one, provided that the facts are autonomous and distinct.

Implications of the Judgment for Public Employment

  • Clarity in disciplinary proceedings: the judgment provides guidance on how to manage disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the importance of separating the contested facts.
  • Protection of workers' rights: while maintaining disciplinary power, the judgment safeguards workers' rights, avoiding excessive sanctions for conduct not directly related.
  • Precedents: the Court referenced precedents that confirm the legitimacy of similar decisions, creating a more defined legal framework.

Judgment No. 8745 of 2024 thus represents an important reference point for the application of sanctions in public employment, clarifying how and when disciplinary power can be exercised without violating workers' rights.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the judgment of the Court of Cassation offers a clear interpretation of the disciplinary dynamics in public employment, highlighting the importance of a legal approach that respects workers' rights. The distinction between conservative and expulsion sanctions, combined with the necessity to verify the autonomy of the contested facts, represents a fundamental element to ensure fairness and justice in disciplinary proceedings. It is essential that employers and employees understand these dynamics to avoid future conflicts and misunderstandings.

Bianucci Law Firm