Key facts of the case:
C.V. was fired illegitimately by the Company where he worked. He sued the Company because he wanted to receive not only the salary that he did not earn as a result of the dismissal but also payment for damages suffered, though he refused the offer by the Company to hire him again. - Labour, - the case questions the possibility of the employer to avoid paying for the damages suffered after the employer had tried to hire again, the employee previously fired illegitimately and the latter refused the offer. According to the Court, such payment is meant to avoid abuses by employers in line with the need for an effective protection of employees pursuant also to article 30 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
An effective judicial protection against an illegitimate termination is nowadays affirmed also in the framework of values and principles of the supranational order in Article 30 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, that cannot definitely be applied directly in this case in compliance with article 51 of the same Charter (being a case that does not raise a question of EU law), but that may definitely be used as source of “free interpretation” of national legislation, being an expression of common principles of European legal systems (Constitutional Court no. 135/2002) and, as a consequence, having an effect also within the national legal system (on Article 30 of the Charter, ,see Court of Cassation no. 28658/2010, Court of Cassation no. 7/2011; on references to the Charter also in cases not involving EU law, see Constitutional Court no. 93/2010, no. 81/2011, no. 31/2012). The agreed solution reinforces, in the light also of the principles common to EU member States, the protection of a prompt reparation of damages in favour of the worker and dissuades the employer from delaying payment for violation of a fundamental right of European origin.