Judgment No. 9801 of 2024: Extra-Institutional Appointments and Compatibility in Public Employment

The recent judgment No. 9801 issued on April 11, 2024, by the Court of Cassation, has highlighted a crucial issue for public employees: the compatibility of extra-institutional appointments with the public employment relationship. In particular, the ruling analyzes the situation of an employee who accepted the position of president of the board of directors of a cooperative, addressing issues of incompatibility and the need for employer authorization.

The Regulatory Context

The Court referred to several regulations, including Articles 60 and 61 of Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1957 and Article 53, paragraph 7, of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001. According to these provisions, the acceptance of corporate positions in public employment is not automatically considered incompatible but still requires prior authorization from the employer.

  • Article 60 of Presidential Decree No. 3/1957: Defines situations of absolute incompatibility.
  • Article 61 of the same decree: Provides exceptions for specific appointments but does not exclude the necessity for authorization.
  • Article 53, paragraph 7, Legislative Decree No. 165/2001: Establishes that even unpaid appointments require prior clearance.

The Ruling's Principle

INCOMPATIBILITY (WITH OTHER EMPLOYMENTS, PROFESSIONS, POSITIONS, AND ACTIVITIES) Acceptance of corporate positions - Cooperative societies - Extra-institutional appointment - Authorization - Necessity - Unpaid - Irrelevance - Basis - Case. In contractual public employment, the acceptance of a corporate position, specifically that of president of the board of directors of a cooperative, even if it does not fall under the cases of absolute incompatibility outlined in Article 60 of Presidential Decree No. 3 of 1957, due to the exception provided by Article 61 of the same decree, constitutes an extra-institutional appointment whose execution, in order to assess its compatibility with the employment relationship, requires prior employer authorization pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 7, Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001, even in the case of unpaid appointments, in order to verify compliance with the constitutional principles of exclusivity of the relationship, as well as impartiality and good administration of public administration. (Principle affirmed concerning health sector employees, for whom the conflict of interest must also be verified pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 7, of Law No. 412 of 1991, referenced by Article 53 of Legislative Decree No. 165 of 2001).

This principle perfectly summarizes the ruling affirmed by the Court. The decision emphasizes that, even if the appointment does not fall under the cases of absolute incompatibility, it is nonetheless necessary to obtain authorization to ensure compliance with the principles of exclusivity, impartiality, and good administration in public administration. The Court aimed to highlight how the unpaid nature of the appointment cannot justify the absence of a prior evaluation by the employer.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 9801 of 2024 represents an important reminder regarding the regulation of extra-institutional appointments for public employees. It clarifies that the absence of absolute incompatibility does not exempt one from the obligation to request authorization. This principle is fundamental to preserving the integrity of public administration and ensuring a proper balance between the personal interests of employees and institutional needs. The Court's decision contributes to better defining the responsibilities and duties of public employees in an increasingly complex regulatory context.

Bianucci Law Firm