Late Cross-Appeal in Labour Proceedings: What the Italian Supreme Court Says

Ruling 9686/2025: Late Cross-Appeal Not Allowed on Autonomous Parts of the Judgment

With Ordinance No. 9686 of April 14, 2025, the Labour Section of the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) clarified the conditions under which a late cross-appeal (impugnazione incidentale tardiva) is inadmissible, particularly when it addresses a separate or autonomous part of the original judgment.

This decision is a significant development within the established case law, especially in labour and social security disputes, where multiple third parties are often brought into the proceedings and procedural relationships may be legally severable.

The Case: INAIL and Joint Liability for Legal Costs

The dispute originated from a social security claim filed by a worker against INAIL (Italy’s national institute for insurance against work-related injuries) to recognize the occupational origin of an anxiety-depression syndrome and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

INAIL impleaded the employer (Sa. S.p.A.), who in turn called upon its insurers. The Labour Court of Pisa dismissed the worker’s claim, finding the permanent disability below the compensability threshold. However, the court ordered INAIL to reimburse legal fees jointly to the employer and its insurers.

On appeal, only the worker challenged the merits of the decision. Sa. S.p.A. and GE.IT S.p.A. filed late cross-appeals, contesting only the allocation of legal costs, requesting that the awarded amount be paid separately to each party, rather than jointly.

The Florence Court of Appeal upheld the cross-appeals, modifying the cost allocation accordingly.

Legal Issue: Autonomous Head of Judgment and the Cross-Appeal

INAIL appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the late cross-appeals were inadmissible because they referred to an autonomous head of the judgment, unrelated to the main appeal.

The Supreme Court accepted this argument, reiterating that a late cross-appeal is admissible only when the interest in appealing arises from the principal appeal. If that interest preexists and stems directly from the judgment, the party must file a timely, autonomous appeal instead.

In this case, the principal appeal concerned the merits of the occupational disease claim, while the cross-appeals addressed only the distribution of legal expenses—a procedurally and legally distinct issue. As such, Article 334 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure did not apply.

The Legal Principle Confirmed

The ruling confirms a clear legal principle:

“A late cross-appeal is inadmissible when it concerns an autonomous head of the judgment and the interest in appealing preexists the main appeal.”

Thus, if the principal appeal does not affect the legal interests involved in the cross-appeal, the latter must be filed as a principal appeal within the standard deadline.

The Court supported its reasoning with consistent case law, including Cass. No. 13707/2023, Cass. No. 29448/2024, and Cass. No. 2808/2024, as well as the United Sections ruling No. 8486/2024, which applies only where parties share an inseparable legal relationship or joint liability.

Practical Impact on Labour and Insurance Litigation

This decision is especially relevant in contexts involving:

Multiple severable procedural relationships
No joint liability among multiple plaintiffs or defendants
Legal cost disputes arising independently of the main legal issue

In such cases, a late cross-appeal is not a valid procedural tool unless the interest to appeal is triggered by the principal challenge.

Conclusion

Ruling 9686/2025 strengthens the legal boundaries of late cross-appeals in the Italian procedural system. It offers valuable guidance for practitioners navigating labour, insurance, and social security litigation, where procedural timing and strategy are crucial.

Failure to promptly challenge autonomous heads of a decision can result in inadmissibility and loss of procedural rights.