夜雨聆风Keywords: 意大利 Italy; 劳动法 Employment and Labor Law; 企业合规服务 Corporate Compliance Services; 诉讼与仲裁 Litigation and Arbitration; 人工智能与信息技术 Artificial Intelligence and Information Technology; 奢侈品零售及消费品 Luxury Retail, and Consumer Goods; 汽车、工业与制造业 Automotive, Industrial, and Manufacturing
将人工智能引入生产过程，正逐步影响工作组织方式和职务职责的界定。这带来了一个在劳动纠纷案件中日益频繁的问题：算法系统的采用在多大程度上可以成为撤销某一岗位的正当理由？罗马法院2025年11月19日第9135号判决提供了初步答案，该判决将技术现象纳入传统的基于“客观正当理由”解雇的框架内，并未引入“自动适用规则”或“新法律类别”。
The introduction of artificial intelligence (AI) into production processes is progressively affecting the organization of work and the definition of job duties. This raises a question that is likely to become increasingly frequent in employment litigation: to what extent can the adoption of algorithmic systems justify the elimination of a job position? The recent judgment of the Court of Rome No. 9135 of November 19th, 2025 provides an initial answer, placing the technological phenomenon within the traditional boundaries of dismissal for objective justified reasons (giustificato motive oggettivo), without introducing automatisms or new legal categories.
对于正逐步将自动化工具或算法辅助系统引入运营的公司而言，无论从风险预防还是诉讼策略的角度，评估人工智能对工作组织和雇佣关系的影响都日益关键。
This issue is particularly relevant for companies that are gradually introducing automation tools or algorithmic support systems into their operational activities. In such contexts, assessing the impact on work organization and employment relationships becomes increasingly important both from a preventive perspective and in terms of litigation management.
案件介绍及其与传统原则的一致性
The case and continuity with traditional principles
在2025年11月19日第9135号判决中，罗马法院审理了意大利首批将人工智能明确纳入“客观正当理由”解雇争议范畴的案件之一。法院认定，一家网络安全公司解雇一名平面设计师的行为合法，确认了公司重组的真实性，以及该岗位作为经济金融危机后更广泛的成本削减流程一部分已被实际撤销。
With judgment No. 9135 of November 19th, 2025, the Court of Rome addressed one of the first Italian cases in which AI expressly enters the scope of a dispute concerning dismissal for objective justified reasons. The court deemed lawful the dismissal of a graphic designer employed by a company operating in the cybersecurity sector, confirming the genuineness of the corporate reorganization and the actual elimination of the position as part of a broader cost-reduction process following an economic and financial crisis.
该案的创新之处并不在于法律规则的适用，而在于这样的事实情况：该案中，员工先前履行的部分职责已被其主管使用的人工智能系统所替代，该系统使得主管能够更快、成本更低且（根据法院的调查结果）更优的质量来完成相关工作。
The innovative aspect of the case does not lie in the legal rules applied, but rather in the factual circumstance that part of the duties previously performed by the employee had been absorbed by an AI system, used by the employee’s supervisor to carry out the activity more quickly, at a lower cost and, according to the court’s findings, with better quality.
然而，需要澄清的是，该判决并非标志着人工智能取代人类工作的开端。相反，它重申了与以“客观正当理由”解雇的传统标准的完全一致性：组织需求的真实存在，重组与撤销职位之间的因果关系以及内部调岗的不可能性。对于打算在其生产流程中引入技术工具的公司而言，这种法律上的一致性意味着技术本身并未改变解雇的法定要件，而是对企业证明这些要件的方式提出了更高要求——符合劳动法规定。
It should be clarified, however, that the decision does not mark the beginning of AI replacing human work. On the contrary, it reaffirms full continuity with the traditional criteria governing dismissal for objective justified reasons: the genuine existence of organizational needs, the causal link between the reorganization and the elimination of the position, and the impossibility of internal reassignment. For companies intending to introduce technological tools into their production processes, this legal continuity implies that the technological dimension does not replace, but rather integrates with the traditional organizational and documentary assessments required by employment law.
举证责任、重组的真实性与企业经营自由
Burden of proof, genuineness of reorganization, and freedom of enterprise
法院认为，雇主已履行1966年第604号法律规定的举证责任。具体而言，一系列客观事实证明了公司确实处于危机状态：公司进行重组、多名员工被裁、因欠租被赶出办公场所，并启动了劳资危机协商程序。在此背景下，公司决定对设计部等非核心部门进行调整，被视为符合结构性降本的需要。
The Court held that the burden of proof borne by the employer under Law No. 604/1966 had been satisfied. In particular, the state of crisis was demonstrated through a series of objective elements: corporate restructuring, multiple terminations of employment relationships, eviction due to non-payment, and the initiation of a negotiated crisis procedure. In this context, the decision to intervene in non-core departments, including the design department, was deemed consistent with a plan for structural cost reduction.
就因果关系而言，法官认定原告的职位已被实际撤销。原岗位的部分职责被直接裁撤，剩余的职责则转交给了原告的主管——后者借助人工智能完成了这些工作。根据意大利最高法院的既定判例，撤销岗位并不需要岗位对应的所有职责都被裁撤：只要该职位作为一个独立的组织单元不复存在，就已足够。
With regard to the causal link, the judge found that the claimant’s position had actually been eliminated. Some duties had been removed, while others had been assigned to the employee’s supervisor, who carried them out with the assistance of AI. In line with established case law of the Court of Cassation, it is not necessary that all duties be eliminated: the suppression of the organizational position as a whole is sufficient.
此外，意大利最高法院长期以来一直承认，即使解雇是为了提高管理效率或增加盈利能力，而非应对经营危机，也可以构成客观正当的解雇理由。从这个角度看，企业为提高效率而引入技术工具，完全属于工作组织层面的正当考量。
Moreover, the Court of Cassation has long recognized the legitimacy of dismissal for objective justified reasons even when motivated by the need to improve managerial efficiency or increase profitability, not necessarily linked to a state of crisis. From this perspective, the adoption of technological tools capable of improving efficiency fully falls within the scope of reasons relating to the organization of work.
因此，创新并未改变法律规则本身，只是改变了这些规则的适用场景。对企业而言，这意味着必须妥善记录重组过程，并说明新技术的引入如何影响了公司职能结构。
Innovation, therefore, does not alter the legal prerequisites but changes the context in which they are applied. For companies, this entails the need to properly document reorganization processes and the ways in which the introduction of new technologies affects the structure of corporate functions.
悬而未决的问题：重新安置与技术证据
Open issues: redeployment and technological evidence
另一个关键问题涉及企业的重新安置义务。在该案中，法院排除了内部调岗的可能性，理由是公司没有合适的职位空缺，且该员工的技能与其他岗位的要求不匹配。在高度专业化的领域，引入算法系统可能会从结构上加剧重新安置的难度，即一个被替代的专业岗位，往往因其高度特殊性，在公司内部根本找不到可承接的“剩余空间”。
Another particularly sensitive issue concerns redeployment (repêchage). In the case examined, the Court ruled out the possibility of internal reassignment, noting the absence of available positions and the lack of overlap between the employee’s skills and other roles within the company. In highly specialized sectors, the introduction of algorithmic systems may structurally make redeployment more difficult: the professional role that has been replaced may be so specific that no residual space remains within the organization.
在此背景下，前期的组织分析变得尤为重要——企业需要评估引入自动化工具后，会对岗位结构产生什么影响，员工还有没有重新安置的可能。同样，重组过程的记录也至关重要。一旦进入诉讼，这些记录是证明职位确实被撤销、内部确实没有其他岗位的关键依据。
In such contexts, the preliminary phase of organizational analysis becomes increasingly important in order to assess the effects that the introduction of automated tools may have on the structure of tasks and on the possibilities of redeploying personnel. Likewise, proper documentation of reorganization processes becomes essential to demonstrate, in the event of litigation, the actual elimination of the position and the absence of internal employment alternatives.
还有一个可能影响诉讼结果、或将减轻雇主的举证责任的因素。人类工作被人工智能系统替代这一事实，可以通过提供输入（即提示词）及相应的输出来加以记录，这些材料能够证明员工先前履行的活动与如今分配给自动化系统的活动之间存在功能上的等同性。这可能使得证明重组与岗位撤销之间的因果关系变得更加容易。这一方面也在证据管理和人工智能工具的内部治理方面开启了新的场景，其潜在影响不仅限于劳动法领域，还涉及公司合规以及对生产流程中所使用的技术系统的管理。
There is also an additional element that may influence future litigation: the facilitation of the employer’s burden of proof. The replacement of human work with AI systems can be documented through the production of inputs (i.e., prompts) and the corresponding outputs, which may demonstrate the functional equivalence between activities previously performed by the employee and those now assigned to the automated system. This could make it easier to demonstrate the causal link between reorganization and the elimination of the position. This aspect also opens new scenarios in terms of evidence management and the internal governance of AI tools, with potential implications not only in the field of employment law, but also with regard to corporate compliance and the management of technological systems used in production processes.
Conclusions
For the time being, the decision of the Court of Rome follows a path of continuity: AI is a tool, not an autonomous legal category. However, it is evident that the expansion of automation in the service and tertiary sectors will increasingly lead courts—and potentially legislators—to address the boundary between production efficiency and employment protection.
对于企业而言，真正的挑战不在于技术本身，而在于如何在遵守现有法律框架的前提下，将创新融入组织模式。这尤其需要：妥善管理重组过程、预先评估对岗位职责的影响，以及用完备的文件记录以证明商业决策的正当性。
For companies, the real challenge does not lie so much in the adoption of technology itself, but in the ability to integrate innovation into organizational models in compliance with the existing legal framework. This includes, among other aspects, the proper management of corporate reorganizations, the prior assessment of the impact on job duties, and the preparation of adequate documentation to support business decisions.
END
D'Andrea & Partners Legal Counsel will continue to provide information on investment in Italy. If you have any questions related to any business and legal information in general, feel free to contact us at:
info@dandreapartners.com.
意大利德恩瑞律师事务所将继续提供相关的信息。若有更多关于意大利的投资相关的信息，您可以通过以下邮箱联系我们的专业人员咨询相关问题： info@dandreapartners.com。
D'Andrea & Partners Legal Counsel is a leading international law firm, with our European headquarters situated in Milan, Italy, and our Asia-Pacific headquarters based in Shanghai, China. Our firm has a strong presence across major cities in China. Our firm has a strong presence across major cities in China, India, Italy, UAE, and Vietnam, as well as a Russian-speaking Desk. We are one of the very few international law firms in China duly authorized by the Ministry of Justice of the PRC to operate as a Representative Office of a foreign law firm in China.
意大利德恩瑞律师事务所是一家领先的国际律师事务所，我们的欧洲总部位于意大利米兰，亚太总部位于中国上海。我们的公司在中国、印度、意大利、阿联酋、越南等主要城市都有强大的业务，并设有俄罗斯语言服务台。我们是为数不多的经中华人民共和国司法部正式授权，在中国设立代表处经营的国际律师事务所之一。
Disclaimer
The above content is provided for informational purposes only. The provision of this article does not create an attorney-client relationship between D'Andrea & Partners and the reader and does not constitute legal advice. Legal advice must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case, and the contents of this article are not a substitute for legal counsel.
声明
以上内容仅供参考。本文的规定并不构成德恩瑞律师事务所和读者之间的律师-客户关系，也不能作为法律建议。法律咨询必须针对每个案件的具体情况，本文的内容不能取代法律咨询。
Would you like to learn more? Contact us to get the publications on Amazon!
你想了解更多关于投资相关的信息吗？联系我们获取出版物！
Latest Articles 近期内容
Event Invitation | Legal Risks & Tax Cost Control for Over-Age Hiring
Digital Economy & High-Tech FDI: Why Global Tech Firms Are Increasing Their Presence in Vietnam
