Categories: Case Law
The Court of Rome, with sentence no. 8841 of May 15th, 2012, stated that the suspension - provided for by the Law no. 10/2011 (law which converted the so called “Decreto Milleproroghe”) - until December 31st, 2011 of the new terms of claiming, established by the art. 32 of Law no. 183/2010 (so called “Collegato Lavoro”), is not referred to the flexible contracts (among others, staff leasing contracts, fixed-term contracts and contracts on project basis).
Categories: Legislation
INAIL, with note No. 3341/2012, stated that employers, who have not complied with the regulative deadline of March 16, 2012 concerning the communication of salaries paid in 2011, may regularize their position making the abovementioned declaration within June 18, 2012, thus avoiding the risk of the application of the administrative sanction equal to EUR 770.
Categories: Legislation
Senate approved yesterday the bill on the labour law reform, with 231 favorable votes, 33 not favorable votes and 9 abstensions.
Categories: Case Law
Court of Cassation, with sentence no. 5241/2012, specified that companies which did not execute the risks assessment may not enter into fixed-term contracts.
Categories: Legislation
More time for the corrections of the non-essential data of the mandatory communications to “Centro per l’Impiego”.
Categories: Legislation
INPS, with message No. 8447/2012, stated that the doubling of the prescription period, from five to ten years, for the recovery of the unpaid social security contributions is applicable only if the complaint occurs within five years from the expiry thereof.
Categories: Legislation
Law Decree no. 57 of 12th May 2012, issued on the Official Gazette no. 111/2012, confirmed the validity for further 6 months of the simplified procedures regarding the assessment of the risks for the companies which staffed with up to 10 employees.
Categories: Case Law
Court of Cassation, with the decree no. 6721 of 4th May 2012, as opposed to the previous case-law orientation stated from the United Sections of the Supreme Court, specified that, in order to challenge the collection notice issued on a measure notified by mistake, it is necessary to trigger a formal claim challenging the both deeds.
