RULING NO. 144

YEAR 2025

has rendered the following

RULING

in the constitutional legitimacy review proceeding concerning Article 63, paragraph 2, second sentence (recte: third sentence), of Legislative Decree of March 30, 2001, no. 165 (General provisions on the organisation of employment in the public administration), as amended by Article 21, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree of May 25, 2017, no. 75, providing for "Amendments and integrations to Legislative Decree of March 30, 2001, no. 165, pursuant to Articles 16, paragraphs 1, letter a), and 2, letters b), c), d), and e), and 17, paragraph 1, letters a), c), e), f), g), h), l) m), n), o), q), r), s), and z), of Law of August 7, 2015, no. 124, regarding the reorganisation of public administrations," promoted by the Ordinary Court of Trento, acting as labour judge, in the proceeding between S. T. and the Provincial Agency for Health Services for the Autonomous Province of Trento, by order of January 9, 2025, registered under no. 13 of the register of ordinary proceedings 2025 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 7, special first series, of the year 2025.

Having reviewed the statement of constitution of S. T. and the intervention statement of the President of the Council of Ministers;

Having heard Judge Rapporteur Antonella Sciarrone Alibrandi at the public hearing of July 8, 2025;

Having heard the attorneys Salvatore Florio and Vincenzo Ferrante for S. T., as well as the State Attorney Pietro Garofoli for the President of the Council of Ministers;

Deliberated in the council chamber of July 10, 2025.

Facts Considered

1.– By order of January 9, 2025 (registered under no. 13 of the ordinary proceedings 2025), the Ordinary Court of Trento, acting as labour judge, raised a question of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 63, paragraph 2, second sentence (recte: third sentence), of Legislative Decree of March 30, 2001, no. 165 (General provisions on the organisation of employment in the public administration), as amended by Article 21, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree of May 25, 2017, no. 75, providing for "Amendments and integrations to Legislative Decree of March 30, 2001, no. 165, pursuant to Articles 16, paragraphs 1, letter a), and 2, letters b), c), d), and e), and 17, paragraph 1, letters a), c), e), f), g), h), l) m), n), o), q), r), s), and z), of Law of August 7, 2015, no. 124, regarding the reorganisation of public administrations."

1.1.– The aforementioned provision is challenged for contrast with the principle of equality under Article 3 of the Constitution, insofar as it stipulates, "in light of a necessarily systematic interpretation," that the compensation indemnity, due to an employee of a public administration unlawfully dismissed, subject to the severance premium scheme (IPS) under Law of March 8, 1968, no. 152 (New provisions concerning social security for local authority personnel), shall be calculated based on the last reference salary for the calculation of the said indemnity, "instead of the last salary including all emoluments of a continuous nature that relate to the specific working conditions in force at the time of dismissal, excluding those occasional and whose receipt is uncertain, as well as those normally occasional or exceptional in nature."

1.2.– The referring judge states that they must rule on the claim filed by S. T., a medical executive, against the disciplinary sanction of dismissal without notice, imposed on October 19, 2021, by the Provincial Agency for Health Services of Trento, the employer. The judge explains, in particular, that upon ascertaining the illegality of the dismissal, they ordered the reinstatement of the claimant to the workplace by a non-final judgment of September 14, 2023, and must now proceed with the liquidation of the compensation indemnity in favour of the worker, as the identification of the reference parameter for its calculation is disputed between the parties.

According to the claimant, such parameter should be represented by the "last reference salary for the calculation of the end-of-service benefit," as literally prescribed by Article 63, paragraph 2, third sentence, of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, to be determined based on Article 1, paragraph 2, of Annex 4 to the Provincial Collective Labour Agreement for medical and veterinary executive personnel of the Provincial Health Service for the legal four-year period 2002/2005 – economic bienniums 2002-2003 and 2004-2005, signed on September 25, 2006. Consequently, the indemnity in question would amount to EUR 276,485.31, calculated on the basis of an average monthly salary of EUR 14,454.22.

The defendant Provincial Agency, however, denies the applicability of the collective agreement provision invoked by the worker, as it applies only to personnel who have joined the Laborfonds pension fund and are consequently subject to the severance premium scheme (IPS). Therefore, according to the Agency, Article 2, paragraphs 6 and 7, of Law of August 8, 1995, no. 335 (Reform of the mandatory and complementary pension system) and Article 4, paragraph 1, of the national framework agreement of July 29, 1999, on end-of-service benefits and complementary pensions for public employees, should apply. Consequently, the indemnity due to the claimant would amount to EUR 162,677.32, determined on the basis of a monthly salary of EUR 9,477.88.

1.3.– Given this, the referring judge considers that neither position can be followed, as both presuppose the worker's subjection to the TFR regime governed by Article 2120 of the Civil Code, to which the claimant is instead external, due to his non-adherence to the Laborfonds fund, which provincial collective bargaining requires as a prerequisite for the termination of the IPS regime in favour of the application of the TFR pursuant to Article 2120 of the Civil Code.

1.4.– The judge a quo is therefore faced with "a delicate question of law," namely whether the compensation indemnity under Article 63, paragraph 2, third sentence, of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, due to a public employee unlawfully dismissed, subject to the severance premium scheme (IPS), subsequently reinstated following a judicial decision (as occurred in the present case), "should be calculated on the 'last reference salary for the calculation of the end-of-service benefit,' as literally prescribed by the provision, or whether it should instead be considered that the dismissed worker was accruing the end-of-service benefit, however denominated." The referring judge further highlights that the positions taken by the parties, although leading to conflicting conclusions, "both lean towards the first of the two solutions," by means of provisions "irrelevant" to the claimant's situation, as they are reserved for public employees who have requested the transformation of the IPS into TFR and are therefore related to "emoluments that the claimant will never receive upon termination of the employment relationship."

1.5.– For this reason, the referring judge excludes that the contested provision can be interpreted literally, as it would refer to an emolument that could in no case apply to the employment relationship in question. Consequently, they deem it necessary to interpret the aforementioned Article 63 according to "systematic reasons, as the literal interpretation is insufficient to clearly and unambiguously identify the meaning and connected mandatory scope of the provision." It follows, for the referring judge, that the compensation indemnity under the said provision should be calculated based on the last reference salary for the calculation of the specific emolument actually due (TFR or IPS). This is because "the legislator, for the purpose of computing the compensation indemnity for damages caused by unlawful dismissal, has always considered the factual and legal status of the employment relationship between the parties in the period immediately preceding the notice of dismissal."

1.6.– According to the referring judge, it appears "more probable" that the legislator, when amending Article 63 of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, "was influenced" by the choice already made within Legislative Decree of March 4, 2015, no. 23 (Provisions regarding permanent employment contracts with increasing protections, implementing Law of December 10, 2014, no. 183) – which refers to the calculation of the TFR – "rather than having considered the coexistence," among public employees, of those entitled to TFR and those entitled to IPS and "knowingly chosen to grant" the latter "a compensation protection calculated on an emolument that [...] they would never have received."

1.7.– In the opinion of the Court, this would lead to an unjustified disparity of treatment between workers, depending on whether they are subject to the TFR regime, based on a comprehensive notion of salary, or to the IPS regime, based on the exhaustive and legally predetermined nature of the emoluments included therein: the latter would be entitled to lower compensation protection, as it would be calculated on a more limited salary base, despite suffering the same damage caused by unlawful dismissal. The referring judge points out that the reference salary for the calculation of the TFR pursuant to Article 2120 of the Civil Code includes a plurality of emoluments that, although received in a fixed and continuous manner by the worker, cannot be considered for the calculation of the IPS, which, according to established law, includes only the items of the "fundamental treatment" of the salary pursuant to Article 93, paragraph 1, of the CCPL for medical and veterinary executives of the Provincial Health Service (numerous rulings of the Court of Cassation are cited for this purpose, starting with the civil united sections, ruling of April 29, 1997, no. 3673).

1.8.– In light of this difference – which also results from the calculations performed by the parties in the main proceedings – the adequacy of the compensation indemnity to fulfil its function, which consists of recognising the worker, unlawfully dismissed, "what they would have received if, in the absence of dismissal, they had continued to work and subsequently if, after its annulment, they had been re-hired pursuant to the reinstatement order imposed by the judge," would be seriously compromised if liquidated based on the last reference salary for the calculation of the IPS (the referring Court cites constitutional and legitimacy jurisprudence in this regard).

1.9.– In conclusion, for the judge a quo – who recognizes the relevance of the issue on the grounds that "the ongoing judgment cannot be defined independently of its solution" – the recognition, to a public worker unlawfully dismissed, subject to the IPS regime, of a compensation protection "far lower" than that due to a public worker, similarly dismissed, under the TFR regime, would conflict with the principle of equality under Article 3, first paragraph, of the Constitution, "given that the difference in protection does not depend on the different extent of the compensable damages suffered as a result of the unlawful dismissal."

2.– The President of the Council of Ministers, represented and defended by the State Attorney's Office, intervened in the proceedings, requesting that this Court declare the question of constitutional legitimacy raised by the Court of Trento inadmissible, or in any event unfounded.

2.1.– In the first place, the State Attorney's Office highlights that the referring judge has deviated from the literal interpretation of the contested provision and has instead deemed a "systematic" interpretation thereof necessary, from which the suspicion of constitutional illegitimacy for violation of Article 3 of the Constitution subsequently arises. This presentation, therefore, renders the question manifestly inadmissible, based on constitutional jurisprudence concerning the judge's duty of conforming interpretation of the law.

2.2.– The question would nonetheless be unfounded.

According to the Attorney's Office, the textual evidence of Article 63, paragraph 2, third sentence, of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001 is "clear and non-discriminatory" in providing that the judge, in order to liquidate the compensation indemnity, must consider "the last reference salary for the calculation of the end-of-service benefit," as this indemnity – being lump-sum and requiring no proof by the worker – may have as its parameter exclusively that indicated by the provision for the "abstract" calculation of the TFR.

The President of the Council of Ministers observes that it is only the logical-systematic interpretation, supported by the judge a quo – but in contrast with the textual evidence – that leads to the alleged discrimination between workers; from this derives the impossibility of taking the IPS as the parameter for liquidating the compensation indemnity, as this is excluded by the letter of the norm itself. Furthermore, this indemnity is not of a remunerative nature, as claimed by the referring judge, but of a compensatory nature, for the quantification of which the legislator, always respecting the principles of reasonableness and adequacy, is free to exercise their discretion.

3.– S. T. also constituted in the proceedings, requesting this Court, in particular, "a ruling that ensures that the prejudice suffered by him [...] shall be recognised as calculated on the salary effectively lost, [...] therefore, including all elements paid continuously due to the employment relationship and useful for the purposes of the TFR, pursuant to art. 2120 of the Civil Code, [...] only deducting what the claimant has received from other employment activities."

3.1.– For the party, this result could be achieved either with a ruling of acceptance, as proposed by the Court of Trento, or, in the event of rejection, with an interpretative ruling that recognises that the indemnity in question must be benchmarked against the last reference salary for the calculation of the end-of-service benefit.

3.2.– After reconstructing the evolution of the regulation concerning the dismissal of public employees as well as that of the various retirement benefits, the party highlighted that the choice to apply one scheme rather than another (TFR or IPS) corresponds to the principle of freedom of adherence to complementary pensions and cannot be relevant to the measure of damages in the event of unlawful dismissal. Furthermore, the purpose of retirement benefits, paid upon the definitive termination of the employment relationship, would differ from that of reinstatement and compensation for damages in the event of unlawful dismissal, which are aimed instead at reconstituting that relationship, postponing the receipt of the retirement benefit. Moreover, with the reconstitution of the relationship, the worker would still have the possibility to opt for the application of the TFR pursuant to Article 59, paragraph 56, of Law of December 27, 1997, no. 449 (Measures for the stabilisation of public finance), due to the postponement of the relevant time limit for forfeiture to December 31, 2025, as provided by the National Framework Collective Agreement signed on August 3, 2021, for the extension of the term of Article 2, paragraph 3, of the NQA of July 29, 1999, on end-of-service benefits and complementary pensions for public employees.

4.– In the proximity of the hearing, both the party and the Attorney's Office filed explanatory memoranda.

Considerations in Law

1.– The Court of Trento, acting as labour judge, by the order indicated in the preamble, raised a question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 63, paragraph 2, third sentence, of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, as amended by Article 21, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree no. 75 of 2017, with reference to the principle of equality under Article 3 of the Constitution, insofar as it stipulates, "in light of a necessarily systematic interpretation," that the compensation indemnity for unlawful dismissal, due to an employee of a public administration subject to the severance premium scheme (IPS) under Law no. 152 of 1968, shall be calculated based on the last reference salary for the calculation of the said indemnity, "instead of the last salary including all emoluments of a continuous nature that relate to the specific working conditions in force at the time of dismissal, excluding those occasional and whose receipt is uncertain, as well as those normally occasional or exceptional in nature."

1.1.– Article 63, paragraph 2, third sentence, of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, specifically provides that the unlawfully dismissed public employee shall be granted, in addition to the reinstatement protection, "a compensation indemnity calculated on the last reference salary for the calculation of the end-of-service benefit corresponding to the period from the day of dismissal until the day of effective reinstatement, and in any case not exceeding twenty-four months' salary."

1.2.– The referring judge, however, excluded being able to interpret the provision literally because it refers to "the last reference salary for the calculation of the end-of-service benefit," an emolument that cannot apply to the employment relationship in question, due to the absence, on the part of the claimant worker, already a public employee as of December 31, 1995, of the exercise of the option for complementary pension benefits and adherence to the Laborfonds pension fund, provided for by provincial collective bargaining as a prerequisite for the termination of the IPS regime in favour of the application of the TFR pursuant to Article 2120 of the Civil Code.

1.3.– The judge a quo therefore deemed it necessary to interpret Article 63 of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001 according to "systematic reasons," to the effect that the reference parameter should be identified based on the economic treatment actually due to the worker at the time of termination of the employment relationship: the last reference salary for the calculation of the TFR, if the worker was subject, at the time of dismissal, to the legal regime under Article 2120 of the Civil Code, or the last reference salary for the calculation of the severance premium indemnity, if they were instead subject to the relevant regime.

1.4.– This alternative would result in an unjustified disparity of treatment, as the salary base for the calculation of the IPS would be narrower than that of reference for the TFR, leading to a lower compensation indemnity for the worker subject to the former regime.

2.– The President of the Council of Ministers, intervening in the proceedings, preliminarily objected to the inadmissibility of the question raised by the Trento labour judge due to violation of the obligation of conforming interpretation and request for interpretative endorsement.

2.1.– The objection is unfounded.

As this Court has consistently affirmed for some time, in fact, "[F]or the admissibility of the incidental question, it is sufficient that the referring judge has provided justification [...] on the reasons for the impracticability of the conforming interpretation, while whether such reasons are correct or not is an aspect relating to the merits (most recently, among others, rulings no. 163, no. 105, and no. 6 of 2024)" (ruling no. 23 of 2025).

2.1.1.– In this case, the Court of Trento knowingly excluded the feasibility of the literal interpretation with arguments that are not implausible, consequently assuming that the exegesis it postulated was the only practicable one. The assessment of the agreeableness or otherwise of this interpretative outcome relates to the subsequent verification of the merits of the question.

3.– For the purpose of examining the merits, this Court deems it appropriate to briefly reconstruct the normative and jurisprudential framework concerning the protection of unlawfully dismissed employees whose contracts have been privatised, as it has taken shape following the enactment of Law of June 28, 2012, no. 92 (Provisions on the reform of the labour market in a growth perspective), known as the "Fornero Law," up to the legislative intervention of 2017 which amended paragraph 2 of Article 63 of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, inserting the provision at issue here.

3.1.– With the amendments introduced by Article 1, paragraph 42, of Law no. 92 of 2012 to Article 18 of Law of May 20, 1970, no. 300 (Provisions on the protection of the liberty and dignity of workers, freedom of trade union association and trade union activity in the workplace and provisions on placement), aimed at the general reduction of reinstatement protection in favour of purely compensatory protection, the issue arose in doctrine and case law whether the new dismissal discipline was applicable, or not, to privatised public employment. Uncertainty was generated, in particular, by the provision of Article 51, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001, which specifies that the provisions of Law no. 300 of 1970, "and subsequent amendments and integrations," apply to public administrations regardless of the number of employees.

3.1.1.– After an initial favourable jurisprudential orientation (Court of Cassation, Labour Section, ruling of November 26, 2015, no. 24157), based on the "mobile" nature of the reference contained in the aforementioned Article 51, paragraph 2, the opposite orientation was soon established, which, aligning itself with the majority doctrine, considered Article 18 of the Workers' Statute in the version prior to the "Fornero Law" to be applicable, which provides for reinstatement to the job as the sole protection scheme (Court of Cassation, Labour Section, ruling of June 9, 2016, no. 11868).

3.1.2.– Following the reversal of the Court of Cassation, which subsequent case law of legitimacy and merit followed, the legal system experienced the coexistence of two schemes for some years: privatised public employees continued to benefit from the generalised reinstatement protection under Article 18 of the Workers' Statute, in the version preceding the amendments made by the "Fornero Law"; private employees, on the other hand, benefited from the differentiated and graded protections established by the same Article 18, but in the text reformed in 2012.

3.2.– In this context, the delegate legislator subsequently intervened, implementing the delegation criteria set out in Article 16, paragraph 2, letters b) and c), of Law of August 7, 2015, no. 124 (Delegations to the Government regarding the reorganisation of public administrations), amended, through Article 21 of Legislative Decree no. 75 of 2017, the aforementioned Article 63, paragraph 2, by introducing, in the third sentence, a specific protection mechanism in the event of unlawful dismissal of a public employee.

3.2.1.– As emerges from the preparatory work for Legislative Decree no. 75 of 2017 relating to Article 21 – in particular from the explanatory report and the opinion expressed by the Special Commission of the Council of State of April 21, 2017, no. 916 – the intent underlying the amendment was to crystallise the principle of real protection, which case law had already reached, thereby putting an end to the long-standing dispute regarding the protection regime due to the public worker in the event of dismissal.

3.2.2.– The new provision specifically stipulates that "[T]he judge, with the ruling that annuls or declares the dismissal null and void, orders the administration to reinstate the worker to the job and to pay a compensation indemnity calculated on the last reference salary for the calculation of the end-of-service benefit corresponding to the period from the day of dismissal until the day of effective reinstatement, and in any case not exceeding twenty-four months' salary, deducting what the worker has received for the performance of other work activities. The employer is also ordered, for the same period, to pay social security and welfare contributions."

3.2.3.– This scheme differs, in fact, both from the so-called "attenuated reinstatement," under the current Article 18, fourth paragraph, of the Workers' Statute and Article 3, paragraph 2, of Legislative Decree no. 23 of 2015 (providing for a maximum compensation limit of twenty-four months' salary, and not requiring the deduction of aliunde earnings), and from the so-called "full reinstatement," under Article 18, second and third paragraphs, of the Workers' Statute and Article 2 of Legislative Decree no. 23 of 2015 (not providing for a minimum compensation amount, nor the option for the substitute indemnity equal to 15 months' salary).

3.2.4.– In doctrine, it has therefore been highlighted from several quarters that the legislator of 2017 designed an ad hoc legal-sanctioning regime for public workers. It is, in fact, a "unique sanction" (Court of Cassation, Labour Section, order of December 17, 2022, no. 37040), a "third model" of protection, which applies to any type of unlawful dismissal and to all privatised public employees, including executives, with the size of the administration carrying out the dismissal remaining irrelevant.

4.– Having established the foregoing regarding the protection regime for unlawfully dismissed public employees, it is also appropriate, still for the purpose of examining the merits of the issue, to briefly illustrate the IPS and TFR instruments that are relevant here.

4.1.– In both cases, these are sums of money due to the worker upon termination of the employment relationship.

The IPS, which falls under the more general instrument of the end-of-service benefit (TFS), is a typical emolument of the public sector, whereas the TFR concerns the private sector (and the privatised public sector under the conditions to be seen below); both "aim to support the worker in the delicate phase of exiting active working life (ruling no. 159 of 2019)" (ruling no. 130 of 2023).

4.2.– The former is in particular provided for employees of local authorities, regions, and the National Health Service. It is governed by Law no. 152 of 1968 which, in Article 11, establishes the methods for determining the contributory salary, providing, in the fifth paragraph, that it "shall consist of the salary or wages including periodic increases, the thirteenth month's salary, and the value of benefits in kind, due by law or regulation and forming an integral and essential part of the salary itself [...]."

4.2.1.– Case law of legitimacy has consistently interpreted the notion of contributory salary restrictively, holding that the severance premium indemnity consists only of the emoluments literally mentioned by the aforementioned Article 11, whose enumeration is exhaustive and contains the wording "salary or wages," which requires a restrictive interpretation, in light of the specific mention, as components of this item, of periodic increases, the thirteenth month's salary, and the value of benefits in kind (Court of Cassation, civil united sections, ruling of April 29, 1997, no. 3673; more recently, Labour Section, ruling of August 7, 2024, no. 22368, which excluded the principle of comprehensiveness for the indemnity in question, otherwise established for the TFR).

4.3.– The TFR, on the other hand, is the emolument due to the service provider in every case of termination of the employment relationship. Pursuant to Article 2120, second paragraph, of the Civil Code, "[U]nless otherwise provided by collective agreements, the annual salary [...] comprises all sums, including the equivalent of benefits in kind, paid in connection with the employment relationship, on a non-occasional basis, and excluding that paid as reimbursement of expenses."

4.3.1.– Differently from what occurs with the IPS, the notion of salary incorporated by Article 2120 of the Civil Code for the purposes of calculating the end-of-service benefit, as affirmed by case law of legitimacy (among the most recent, Court of Cassation, Labour Section, ruling of September 16, 2024, no. 24801, and order of May 22, 2024, no. 14242), is inspired by the principle of comprehensiveness, in the sense that this calculation must include all emoluments that find their typical and normal cause in the employment relationship to which they are institutionally connected, even if not strictly related to the actual performance, while only those sums are excluded for which the employment relationship constitutes a mere contingent occasion for their enjoyment.

4.4.– As is known, following the reform of the public employee pension system by Law no. 335 of 1995 and the progressive process of assimilation of the public end-of-service benefit (which, as stated, includes the severance premium indemnity) to the private TFR, there is the existence of a "dual scheme, of a publicistic type for employees hired before 2001, corresponding to the TFS, and of a private type for employees hired from January 1 of that year, consisting of the TFR" (ruling no. 244 of 2020).

Personnel hired before this date therefore remain under the TFS scheme, but with the option to request its transformation into TFR, exercising the option under Article 59, paragraph 56, of Law no. 449 of 1997 (within the deadline, repeatedly extended, now set at December 31, 2025, based on the CCNQ of August 3, 2021).

4.4.1.– In this regard, this Court has recently "clarified that 'the fact that some public administration employees enjoy the end-of-service benefit and others the end-of-service indemnity is a consequence of the transition of the employment relationship from a public law regime to a private law regime and the gradualness that, with specific reference to the institutions in question, the legislator, in the exercise of its discretion, considered appropriate to impress upon it' (ruling no. 244 of 2014). In fact, it is up to the discretionary assessment of the legislator, consistent with the general standard of reasonableness, to delimit the scope of application of successive regulations over time, nor does the differentiated treatment applied to the same facts at different times conflict per se with the principle of equality (rulings no. 240 of 2019 and no. 104 of 2018)" (ruling no. 73 of 2024).

5.– Having established all the above, the question is unfounded.

5.1.– The interpretative premise from which the judge a quo starts – namely, the differentiation of the relevant salary base for the compensation indemnity based on the end-of-service emolument actually due to the worker at the time of dismissal – cannot, in fact, be shared.

5.1.1.– As seen above, the intent underlying the amendment to Article 63 of Legislative Decree no. 165 of 2001 is to be found in the harmonisation of the regulation concerning the dismissal of privatised public workers, so as to ensure, indiscriminately, to all dependent personnel, the same remedial mechanism in the event of unlawful dismissal by the public employer.

5.2.– The contested provision, by referring to the TFR, therefore provides an "abstract" parameter for the liquidation of a single compensation indemnity, in addition to the real protection provided for the unlawfully dismissed worker.

5.3.– This is a compensatory measure of a lump-sum nature, requiring no proof regarding the quantification of damages by the worker, which moreover has a maximum limit set at twenty-four months' salary, with the deduction of only the aliunde perceptum.

In this context, the worker's failure to choose to switch from the IPS regime to the TFR regime, concerning the physiological phase of termination of the employment relationship, remains in the background, without assuming any relevance for the determination of the indemnity in question, which instead relates to a pathological phase of the relationship itself.

6.– The question is therefore unfounded due to the erroneous interpretative premise.

For these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares unfounded the question of constitutional legitimacy of Article 63, paragraph 2, third sentence, of Legislative Decree of March 30, 2001, no. 165 (General provisions on the organisation of employment in the public administration), as amended by Article 21, paragraph 1, letter a), of Legislative Decree of May 25, 2017, no. 75, providing for "Amendments and integrations to Legislative Decree of March 30, 2001, no. 165, pursuant to Articles 16, paragraphs 1, letter a), and 2, letters b), c), d), and e), and 17, paragraph 1, letters a), c), e), f), g), h), l) m), n), o), q), r), s), and z), of Law of August 7, 2015, no. 124, regarding the reorganisation of public administrations," raised, with reference to Article 3 of the Constitution, by the Ordinary Court of Trento, acting as labour judge, with the order indicated in the preamble.

Decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on July 10, 2025.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Rapporteur

Roberto MILANA, Director of the Registry

Filed in the Registry on October 7, 2025

The anonymised version is textually compliant with the original