Disciplinary proceedings in public employment: the Court of Cassation excludes any “cure” in the absence of formal notice of the charges

By judgment No. 3857 of 20 February 2026, the Italian Supreme Court clarified that, in disciplinary proceedings concerning public employment, the failure to formally notify the employee of the charges cannot be cured by the employee’s subsequent “de facto” knowledge of the allegations. Formal notice of the disciplinary charges is the essential prerequisite for the exercise of the right of defence, and its absence gives rise to a fundamental defect affecting the entire procedure.

The case concerned an employee of a local health authority who was subject to disciplinary proceedings, but whose notice of charges had never actually been received, as it had been sent to the wrong address. The Court of Appeal had nevertheless held the procedure to be lawful, relying on the fact that the employee had subsequently become aware of the charges through other procedural documents and had therefore been able to defend himself.

The Court of Cassation, however, adopted a much stricter position, clarifying that the issue did not concern a late notice of charges, but rather the total omission of such notice. According to the Supreme Court, subsequent knowledge of the charges is not sufficient to cure the original defect, since the right of defence must be guaranteed from the very beginning of the disciplinary procedure.

The ruling follows the line of authority that attaches particular importance to the procedural safeguards provided for by Article 55-bis of Legislative Decree No. 165/2001 and by Article 7 of the Workers’ Statute. Formal notice of the disciplinary charges is in fact regarded as the essential moment through which the employee acquires full knowledge of the alleged facts and can promptly prepare his or her defence.

From a more critical perspective, the decision appears to further emphasise the importance of procedural formalities in public employment, excluding any possibility of assessing in practice whether the employee was nevertheless able to exercise his or her right of defence. The Court gives priority to a strictly formal protection of procedural safeguards, holding that the omission of formal notice of the charges entails a fundamental defect affecting the entire disciplinary procedure.

The ruling is of particular operational relevance for public administrations and for all parties involved in the disciplinary management of personnel. The decision confirms that errors in the communication of disciplinary charges may affect the validity of the entire procedure, even where the employee has subsequently become aware of the allegations.