The Constitutional Court intervened several times on the scrutiny of the Council and in the past also of the European bodies on the Jobs Act. For the judges, as stated in a note, “the reform of the discipline of dismissals cannot be postponed, a matter of essential importance for its connection with the rights of the person of the worker and for its repercussions on the overall economic system”. With sentence 183, the vice president Silvana Sciarra, the court “while declaring inadmissible the complaints of the Court of Rome on the compensation provided by the so-called Jobs Act for illegitimate dismissals in small businessesa warning is addressed to the legislator to intervene urgently in this matter, providing adequate safeguards “.
The Court found that “an indemnity forced within the small gap between a minimum of three and a maximum of six monthly payments nullifies the need to adjust the amount to the specificity of each individual case” and does not represent an appropriate and coherent remedy. with the requirements of adequacy and dissuasiveness affirmed by sentences no. 194 of 2018 and no. 150 of 2020 of the same Court.
“The limited difference between the minimum and maximum determined by law gives a preponderant, if not exclusive, importance to the number of employees”. This criterion continues the court “” in a framework dominated by the incessant evolution of technology and the transformation of production processes “, it is not indicative of effective economic strength of the employer nor does it offer significant elements to determine the amount of the indemnity according to the peculiarities of each individual case. However, it is up to the discretion of the legislator to choose the most appropriate solutions to ensure adequate safeguards. Hence, the communiqué continues, the urgency of a reform, urged by the Court.
The Court of Rome itself envisages multiple solutions to remedy the contrasting profiles with the Constitution. Solutions ranging from the redefinition of a distinctive criterion, centered on the number of employees, to the elimination of the special regime and the redefinition of thresholds. Each of the hypothetical choices corresponds to “different legislative policy options“, The result of“ discretionary assessments ”, writes the Court. Who, in declaring the inadmissibility of the questions, points out: “The continuation of the legislative inertia would not be tolerable”. Therefore, should the question be raised again, it itself will directly intervene on the contested discipline.