Constitutional Court, judgment no. 118/2025: the 6-month cap for unfair dismissals in small businesses is illegitimate. New scenarios for entrepreneurs and managers
Summary
The Constitutional Court has declared the 6-month cap for dismissals in small businesses illegitimate, raising the maximum indemnity to 18 months.
Key Points
- The unconstitutionality of the maximum limit of 6 months for companies with fewer than 15 employees has been declared.
- The new indemnity range for small businesses is set between 6 and 18 months.
- The decision is based on the violation of the principles of equality, reasonableness, and compensatory function.
- Entrepreneurs and managers must re-evaluate economic risks and HR policies due to increased potential costs.
1. THE ISSUE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT
The discipline introduced by Legislative Decree 23/2015 (Jobs Act) provided, for companies with up to 15 employees, a maximum cap of 6 months as indemnity in case of unfair dismissal. This rigid and uniform limit had generated strong criticism in doctrine and jurisprudence, being considered disproportionate and inadequate to guarantee full protection for workers.
2. THE DECISION OF THE CONSULTA
With judgment no. 118 of July 21, 2025 (Pres. Barbera, Rel. Amoroso), the Constitutional Court declared this limit unconstitutional, stating that the judge must be able to modulate the indemnity even in small businesses, within the new range from 6 to 18 months.
The Court considered the provision of the rigid cap to be detrimental to the principles of equality (Art. 3 Const.) and reasonableness, as well as inconsistent with the compensatory function of protection.
3. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
For entrepreneurs and managers, the decision marks a change in perspective:
- potential costs related to dismissals increase significantly;
- the forecast of the risk of conviction must be re-evaluated in budgets and HR policies;
- it will be necessary to develop preventive strategies, including labor law compliance solutions and negotiated exit management.
4. EFFECTS FOR SMALLER COMPANIES
The equalization with large companies entails a substantial uniformity of protection and, for employers of SMEs, the obligation to review the approach to disciplinary and dismissal procedures. Regulatory rigidity is replaced by an elastic system, which increases judicial discretion.
5. SYSTEMIC CONSEQUENCES
The ruling is part of a jurisprudential trend of the Consulta aimed at "constitutionalizing" labor law, emphasizing that workers' rights cannot be unduly compressed in the name of regulatory simplification.
For businesses, this translates into greater exposure to litigation, but also into the possibility of preventing risks through advanced legal advice.
6. OPERATIONAL CONCLUSIONS
For managers, CFOs, and entrepreneurs, judgment no. 118/2025 requires:
- careful evaluation of hiring and termination policies;
- increase in labor law risk management measures;
- greater attention to settlement agreements, which are now more than ever a useful way to limit costs and risks.
Legal Aid supports businesses and professionals in managing employment relationships and related criminal and civil risks, offering integrated advice and tailored defensive strategies.
Content drafted with the support of artificial intelligence tools and reviewed by the firm’s lawyers. More information
Attached Documents
Avv. Roberto Antonio Catanzariti
Legal Aid Italia
Ha letto l'articolo e ha bisogno di assistenza?
Lo Studio Legal Aid è a disposizione per una consulenza riservata. Risposta garantita entro 24 ore.
Legal Insight
Altri articoli dello Studio
Mandato di arresto europeo (MAE): radicamento in Italia e rifiuto della consegna
La Cassazione ribadisce che il termine dei cinque anni non è un dato orientativo ma una soglia legale, e che la sua verifica documentale resta terreno del giudice di merito.
LeggiConfisca a metà: la Cassazione boccia la doppia motivazione su profitto e sproporzione
Cass. pen., Sez. IV, 9 giugno 2026 (dep. 8 settembre 2026), n. 33026. La contraddizione tra confisca diretta e confisca per sproporzione è vizio autonomo, anche quando l'importo in gioco è modesto.
LeggiSequestro su rogatoria estera: l'art. 724 c.p.p. alla prova della Corte costituzionale
L'ordinanza del dott. Roberto Crepaldi, giudice per le indagini preliminari presso il Tribunale di Milano, apre la questione di legittimità costituzionale: manca un rimedio per contestare i.
Leggi