Unsuitability of the canteen service must always be proven

In the case dealt with by the Court of Cassation (by order no. 4559/2025), the Court of Appeal of Venice had overturned the judgment of the Court of Venice that had declared the right of the original plaintiffs - some nursery school teachers in service at a comprehensive school - to receive a full meal if on duty during the pupils' school meals, and had sentenced the then Miur (now MIM), the comprehensive school and the municipality, each within its jurisdiction, to provide a meal consisting of a first and second course, side dish, fruit and bread.

According to the District Court, the appellants had not specifically attached and demonstrated that the canteen service offered was not suitable to meet the welfare need for which it was set up, i.e. to ensure the psychological and physical well-being of the staff engaged in the refectory service: instead, the workers had merely relied on the circumstance that the meal was not complete in the absence of the 'second course', observing that the municipality had organised the service within the limits of the available funds allocated by the ministry. From which the interested parties appealed to the Court of Cassation.

Well, the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible. The criticism, beyond the wording, was substantially centred on the alleged violation of the national guidelines for school catering approved in 2010 by the Unified State-Regions Conference. The allegation was that there had been a violation of an administrative act (or policy) that is not among those of primary or secondary legislation with respect to which it is permissible to complain of violation of rules of law in cassation proceedings. On the other hand, the financial 'contribution' envisaged, as such, does not necessarily have to cover all the costs of the canteen service, which the municipality is required to set up in a manner in any event adequate for the purpose.