Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
With ruling no. 7480 of 2025, the Court of Cassation established an important principle regarding disciplinary dismissal: the communication of dismissal sent via certified email (PEC) to the employee’s lawyer is valid if the employee has explicitly elected domicile at the lawyer’s office during the proceedings.
This decision addresses a specific case where an employee challenged the validity of the dismissal notification, claiming that sending it to the lawyer’s PEC address was null. The Court of Cassation clarified that, when an explicit domicile is elected with the lawyer, the notification is considered valid.
This ruling strengthens the role of PEC in labor law and significantly impacts how communications between employer and employee are handled during disciplinary procedures.
🔍 The Case: Dismissal Notified via PEC to the Lawyer
In this case, the employee received a notification of disciplinary dismissal via PEC, not to their personal address, but to the address of the lawyer representing them in the proceedings.
The employee contested the dismissal, arguing that the notification should have been sent directly to them, not their lawyer.
⚖️ Position of the Court of Appeal of Bologna
The Court of Appeal of Bologna rejected the appeal, noting that during the procedure, the employee had formally elected domicile at the lawyer’s office. This made the PEC communication to that address valid, as it was recognized as the official address for notifications.
📜 Appeal to the Court of Cassation: The Employee’s Objections
The employee then appealed to the Court of Cassation, raising two main points:
- Lack of motivation for the dismissal, as the reasons for termination were not clearly communicated.
- Violation of legal norms, including Article 55-bis of Legislative Decree 165/2001 and Articles 1 and 2 of Law 604/1966, which regulate the procedures and legality of individual dismissal.
🧑⚖️ The Decision of the Court of Cassation: The PEC to the Lawyer is Valid
The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal, confirming the full legitimacy of the notification. According to the judges, the election of domicile at the lawyer’s office by the employee makes communications sent to the lawyer’s PEC valid, as it becomes the employee’s “mediated” domicile.
The Court emphasized the fiduciary relationship between the lawyer and the client, justifying the presumption of full knowledge of the notification through this channel.
📬 The Legal Value of the Lawyer’s PEC
The ruling is also based on the legal status of the lawyer and the system of official digital communications in civil and administrative processes. Every lawyer has a registered PEC address in the INI-PEC (National Index of PECs) and ReGindE (General Register of Electronic Addresses), which are legally recognized and accessible.
To support its decision, the Court of Cassation referred to two important precedents:
- Court of Cassation, United Sections, no. 23620/2018
- Court of Cassation no. 16581/2020
Both rulings reaffirmed the validity of notifications sent to the lawyer’s PEC as the client’s designated digital domicile.
✅ Conclusions: The Lawyer’s PEC is a Valid Domicile if Explicitly Elected
With ruling no. 7480/2025, the Court of Cassation has confirmed a well-established trend: if the employee, during a disciplinary procedure, elects domicile at their lawyer’s office, the notification of dismissal sent via PEC to the lawyer is fully valid.
This interpretation strengthens the use of PEC in labor law and provides greater operational certainty for employers and professionals. Therefore, it is crucial for both parties to pay attention to domicile declarations made during formal proceedings.
