News Supreme Court Judgments June 2017

The “negligent and ignorant” judge has no liability if no harm results from his activity

A judge accused of having acted with “serious violation of law brought about by inexcusable ignorance or negligence” can escape disciplinary charges only if the absence of any unfair prejudice or undue advantage to anyone as an objective consequence of the accused’s behavior, the absence of “neghittosity,” and the defect of injury to the prestige and credibility of the Judicial Order are met.

This is what the United Sections of the Supreme Court ruled (Judgment May 23, 2017 No. 14550), with reference to the case of a magistrate, subjected to disciplinary proceedings due to his “inexcusable negligence,” in relation to proceedings assigned to his section and, in particular, concerning the settlement of fees and compensation for technical consultants.

A blasphemous performance does not entitle viewers with pronounced religious sensitivities to compensatory damages

Recently, the Supreme Court had occasion to rule on a dispute between a foundation and a citizen who had been offended by a performance consisting of a ballet that he considered blasphemous, seriously offensive to common Catholic religious sentiment, and therefore injurious to his right to religious freedom guaranteed by Art. 19 Const.

The Supreme Court (Judgment No. 7468 of March 23, 2017), clarified that the organization of an artistic performance cannot, by itself, constitute a violation of an individual citizen’s personal religious sentiment and be sanctioned by the legal system with the recognition of a compensation claim.

Dismissal of highway traffic auxiliary who fell asleep during duty shift is lawful

The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 14192 of March 1, 2017, sanctioned the legitimacy of the dismissal of the highway traffic auxiliary who falls asleep during the duty shift, thus reforming the appealed judgment which had found said dismissal of the employee unlawful and ordered his reinstatement to the employer company.

The worker was found sleeping in his car (for about two hours) instead of devoting himself to night patrolling the highway, which at the time was carried out together with a colleague; however, the two had not informed the operations center that they had carried out the patrol divided, with two different vehicles.

Such conduct for the Supreme Court is contrary to the duties contractually placed on employees and, in particular, the duties incumbent on highway traffic auxiliaries.