Each work must be presumed for consideration unless it is shown the existence of the purpose of solidarity instead of the profit ... and understanding that the assessment thereof made by the trial judge is censured by the seat of legitimacy if not err in law and logic flaws.
The issue addressed by the Supreme Court involved two people, presumably linked by a relationship of which lend a work for each other, which later brought an action for having such differences in pay due to the employment relationship.
... Below the sentence in full text.
Supreme Court
SECTION WORK
Judgement of 25 November 2008 - January 26, 2009, n. 1833
(President Mercury - Rapporteur Picone)
The facts
The sentence in question is the Supreme Court rejected the appeal of SP and confirms the decision of the Court of L'Aquila on 09/04/2003 with which the appellant was sentenced to pay a sum of Euro 79,063.90 MG as a disparity in wages gained in the employment relationship with the elapsed P. from 13.4.1989 to 28.8.2000. The Court of the Eagle mean that, for effect of a relationship with the employer, there was the possibility of the service provided due affectionis; finds, however, the existence of the employment relationship provided with tasks related to the status of employee exercise of executive retail, considers not specifically challenged on appeal counts developed by G. and adopted by the Court of First Instance.
The use of SP has three reasons, as further clarified in a statement lodged under Article. 378 cpc, resistant response with MG.
legal considerations
The first complaint complaint lack of reasoning in relation to the establishment of a subsidiary nature relationship, as the relationship of solidarity, The investigation revealed, was not altered by the lack of continuous cohabitation. The reason is not well founded.
not the case the hypothesis of the work done within the family context, where even the cohabitation, like the marriage bond, that is to identify the cause in the bonds of solidarity and affection existing alternative compared to constraints typical of a corresponding relationship to performance, what is the employment relationship, unless there is proof of employment (Cass. 15 March 2006, n. 5632).
It is, however, in the presence of work with inclusion in the organization business partner. So, given the downsizing of the presumption of gratuitous services rendered legitimate place in the family following the entry into force of Article. A 230 cc, we can exclude the existence of a corresponding relationship to performance only in the presence of the demonstration of a commonality of interests between the living and living together (de facto family), which does not end in a relationship purely spiritual, emotional and sexual, but, like the marital relationship gives rise to the participation, effective and fair, the cohabiting partner of the resources of family practice (Cass. December 27, 1999, No. 14579, Dec. 13 1986, no 7486, June 16, 1978, No 3012). To that extent it is therefore applicable to the principle that, in general, any activity constitutes an objective job performance is assumed for consideration, but it can be attributed to a different relationship established affectionis vel benevolentiae cause, characterized by the free provision of only if it is proved the existence of the purpose of solidarity instead of profit-making, given that the assessment thereof made by the trial judge is censured by the seat of legitimacy if not err in law and logic flaws (see Cass. 20 February 2006, n. 3602).
to these rules law to comply with the ruling and its appeal findings of fact are substantiated by adequate reasoning and logic.
The facts, in fact, led the trial judge to exclude, correctly applied the legal principles and reasoning logically plausible, which had established the community of interests, including economic, attracting orbit of the ratio constraint solidarity. This understanding is evaluated to verify that cohabitation was not continuous but it is frequently interrupted, especially the importance of the lack of sharing of a common standard of living in relation to the income of the business, resulting in only certain donations made (free of an apartment , payment of some debt, free removal of goods - clothes - from the shop).
The second plea: infringement of Article complaint. 2094 cc and insufficient reasons in relation to the conditional nature of the employment relationship, except by the will of the parties and their leadership roles that would appeal conducted according to the ruling (relations with suppliers, the choice of goods, control of personnel).
The plea must be rejected because it does not take into account, and thus fails to effectively counter it, the presumption that the sentence has drawn from the formal classification of the employment relationship as occurred a few months later, with the issue of regular pay slips filled out by consultant company on the basis of hours worked.
The third claim breach of Article complaint. 434 cc and failure to state reasons why the statements annexed to the application were challenged with memory formation in the first instance within the limits of those reported (panel B, on the calculation of the differences), while for the other party had not been notified (panel A relating to the remuneration received), and the decision at first instance had obvious flaws of reasoning on this point.
The reason is unacceptable because it is inconsistent with the grounds of the appeal.
The Court of Appeal, in fact, held the ground of appeal from counting without specificity, lacking the detection errors that were charged to court in the first issue of determination of wage claims. The plea
insists only on the grounds of the lack of first instance, without censoring the only relevant point, namely the lack of notice of appeal with the formulation of specific criticism to the decision at first instance.
the dismissal of the appeal follows the conviction of the appellant to reimbursement of expenses and fees of the court of Cassation, to the extent determined by the device.
PQM
The Court rejects the appeal, order the appellant to pay the fees and expenses of the court of cassation, paid the first in more than 34.00 Euro SG VAT and CPA, and the second in a total of € 3,000.00. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment