Court of Cassation: the place where the employee performs the smart working is not relevant for the purposes of identifying the court having territorial jurisdiction.

With Ordinance No. 19023 of 5 July 2023, the Court of Cassation declares that pursuant to Article 143 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the employment judge has territorial jurisdiction in the place where the relationship arises or in the place where the company is located or where the company dependency to which the employee is attached is located. By 'company dependency' is meant the place where the employer has located a nucleus of assets organised for the exercise of the business, a concept that cannot coincide solely with the place where the service is performed.

The smart working activity, on the other hand, can be carried out in various locations, and in any case there should be a series of elements capable of characterising the place where the agile service is carried out as a company dependency. In other words, smart working cannot be considered for the purposes of identifying territorial jurisdiction, with the place of conclusion of the contract and the place where the employee was employed remaining the same.