With the recent ruling no. 11344 dated April 30, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court clarified that judicial proceedings initiated under the so-called “Fornero” procedure prior to February 28, 2023, continue to be governed—even in the appeal stages—by the provisions established by that procedure, notwithstanding its repeal under the so-called “Cartabia” reform.
The dispute originated from the challenge to a dismissal brought by a worker employed before March 2015 and thus covered by the protections of Article 18 of the Workers’ Statute (i.e. “Statuto dei Lavoratori”).
To fully understand the matter and the reasoning set forth by the Supreme Court in the ruling under review, it is necessary to reconstruct the procedural phases, including their chronological sequence.
The dismissal was challenged in October 2021 by filing a claim pursuant to Article 1, paragraphs 47 et seq., of Law no. 92/2012 (the so-called Fornero law). By order dated November 9, 2022, the Court of First Instance dismissed the claim, thus concluding the preliminary phase. The employee then filed an opposition against this order, which the Court of first istance rejected by judgment dated June 6, 2023.
About six months later, on December 1, 2023, the claimant lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal, submitting an appeal (rather than the prescribed complaint) against the Court of first istance judgment following the opposition phase.
The Court of Appeal declared the appeal late and thus inadmissible, as it was filed within six months instead of within the thirty-day term required for the complaint.
The Court of first istance interpreted Articles 35 and 37 of Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022—which regulate, respectively, the transitional discipline and the repeal of the Fornero procedure—holding that the repeal applies only to proceedings initiated after February 28, 2023, and that the case at hand, having been initiated prior to that date, remained governed by the previous procedural provisions, namely Article 1, paragraphs 47 et seq., of Law no. 92/2012.
Against this ruling, the employee appealed to the Supreme Court, advancing a single ground of appeal.
The claimant argued that, once the repeal of the Fornero procedure was enacted by the Cartabia reform, the complaint procedure could no longer survive.
This argument was based on the combined reading of the first and fourth paragraphs of Article 35, paragraph 1, of the Cartabia reform, which—as noted—govern the transitional phase between the old and the new procedural rules.
Specifically, the first paragraph provides that, “unless otherwise provided,” the new provisions apply to proceedings initiated after February 28, 2023; the claimant interpreted an exception to this rule in the subsequent fourth paragraph of the same Article 35, which states that the new provisions “apply to appeals filed after February 28, 2023.”
The Italian Supreme Court, rejecting the employee’s appeal, confirmed the correctness of the lower courts’ interpretation.
Starting from a literal analysis of the legislative amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the application of the new provisions to appeals filed after February 28, 2023, is limited to those governed by the ordinary civil procedure (namely, Chapters I and II of Title III, Book II of the Italian Code of Civil procedure) and to those relating to the generality of labor disputes subject to the ordinary labor procedure (Articles 434, 436-bis, 437, and 438 of the Code of Civil procedure).
Article 35, paragraph 4, does not extend its scope to the complaint, which is a specific form of appeal within the so-called Fornero procedure, a procedure to which Article 35 makes no reference.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that this interpretation is consistent with the general principle of perpetuatio iurisdictionis, according to which civil proceedings are governed in their entirety by the procedure in force at the time the claim is filed. The principle of “tempus regit actum”, which means that supervening laws apply immediately to procedural acts considered individually, does not apply to the entire set of systematically organized procedural rules guiding the judicial decision, as this would violate the principle of non-retroactivity of the law set forth in Article 11 of the preliminary provisions to the Civil Code, of which Article 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure is an expression.
It follows that proceedings pending under the Fornero Procedure as of February 28, 2023, remain governed—even during the appeal phase—by the provisions laid down in Article 1, paragraphs 47 et seq., of Law no. 92 of 2012, whose repeal (Article 37, Legislative Decree no. 149 of 2022) applies only to proceedings initiated after February 28, 2023.
Other related insights:
With order no. 11765 of May 5, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that a non-compete agreement is null and void when it imposes excessively broad territorial restrictions and offers only minimal compensation—resulting in an unjustified and disproportionate limitation on the employee’s right to work and earn a living.
In the case at hand, a banking institution had required one of its employees to accept a particularly restrictive non-compete clause. The agreement prohibited the employee from engaging in any professional activity in the banking, insurance, or financial sectors—both within Italy and abroad—for a duration of 12 months. In return, the employee received compensation amounting to just 10% of their gross annual salary (i.e. “RAL”). The clause, as drafted, completely barred the individual from accessing the job market in their area of expertise.
The lower court had already ruled the agreement null and void, primarily due to the lack of defined—or even objectively determinable—territorial limits. This issue was further compounded by the employer’s unilateral right to modify the geographical scope of the restriction through the exercise of its discretionary power (i.e. “ius variandi”), thereby rendering the scope of the clause uncertain and unstable.
The Italian Supreme Court upheld that ruling, stating that under Articles 1346 and 2125 of the Italian Civil Code, a non-compete clause is valid only if the following conditions are met:
With specific regard to the territorial scope, the Supreme Court confirmed that the clause allowing the employer to unilaterally redefine the geographical boundaries made the agreement legally uncertain. The absence of predetermined or determinable limits undermined the enforceability of the clause and deprived the employee of any clear understanding of the restriction’s scope.
The Italian Supreme Court therefore confirmed that a valid non-compete agreement must reflect a fair balance between the employer’s legitimate business interests and the employee’s fundamental right to work. It must allow the employee a real and concrete opportunity to continue exercising their profession, and it must provide compensation that is adequate and proportionate to the burden imposed.
In conclusion, a non-compete clause that is overly punitive, lacks fair compensation, and deprives the employee of genuine professional alternatives will be deemed null and void, in line with the principles of contractual fairness, individual autonomy, and the free circulation of labor. ll’intero accordo, a tutela dell’autonomia professionale e della libera circolazione del lavoro.
Other related insights:
For influencers it is time for rules and consultants (ItaliaOggi7, 5 May 2025 – Alessandro Ferrari)As of 1 April this year, those who make content for the web are required to register with a new Ateco code. But there are many rules that must be respected in order to earn money on the web.
Influencers” and their correct classification: reflections in the light of INPS circular no. 44/25
Alessandro Ferrari, Senior Associate of our Firm, was interviewed by ItaliaOggi7 on the subject of influencers.
That of the influencer is a “new” profession that cannot be framed in any specific case provided for by the Civil Code.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
Therefore, with increasing frequency, the problem of identifying the correct contractual classification arises in practice.
Continue reading the full version of the interview published in ItaliaOggi here.
With the recent ruling no. 9282 of April 8, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that the legislation on individual dismissals (Law 604/1966, amended in 2010) applies to probationary employees only when the employment becomes permanent or at least six months have passed since the start of the employment relationship.
A company decided to terminate the employee’s contract during the probationary period for failing to pass the probationary evaluation.
The employee contested the probationary termination in compliance with the extrajudicial appeal period, requesting a conciliation attempt (which was rejected by the employer), but failed to respect the deadline for filing the judicial appeal.
The Court of Appeal of Venice, confirming the first-instance judgment, ruled that the employee’s appeal was filed beyond the expiration period set forth by Article 6 of Law 604/1966. According to this rule, a dismissal appeal is ineffective if not followed by the filing of the judicial appeal within sixty days after the failure of the conciliation attempt.
The employee appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Italian Supreme Court, arguing that Law 604/1966 was not applicable in this case, as Article 10 of the same law (amended by Law 183/2010) states that dismissal regulations apply only once the employment becomes permanent or at least six months have passed from the beginning of the employment relationship.
The Italian Supreme Court, in ruling no. 9282/2025, upheld the employee’s appeal, stating that the judges of the court of first instance had erroneously applied the individual dismissal regulations (Article 6 of Law 604/1966) without considering the specific nature of the probationary employment relationship.
The Supreme Court clarified that termination during the probationary period does not fall under the statutory deadlines for dismissals as established by Article 6 of Law 604/1966 and Article 32 of Law 183/2010.
This is due to the fact that the probationary agreement has a distinct nature, intended to allow both parties to evaluate the mutual suitability of the employment relationship, and as such, it is governed by a more flexible framework.
In these situations, the Supreme Court explained, the standard five-year statute of limitations applies, rather than the more rigid deadlines set for ordinary dismissals.
As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision and sent the case back to the Court of first-instance for further consideration, taking into account the specific circumstances surrounding the termination during the probationary period.
Other related insights:
With ruling no. 7615 of April 15, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of the dismissal of an employee who had exceeded the maximum period of sick leave (i.e. “periodo di comporto” – the maximum duration of illness-related absence beyond which the employment relationship may be lawfully terminated), despite the employer’s earlier refusal to grant her a leave request.
In the case under consideration, the employee had initially requested vacation leave at a time when she was not suffering from any illness. Shortly afterward, however, she entered a new period of sick leave, ultimately leading to the exhaustion of the sick leave period. The vacation had been requested during a time of reduced staffing, with three out of seven employees already absent. Based on these organizational needs, the employer denied the request.
The Supreme Court found that two key conditions were not met: the vacation was not requested during an active period of illness, and the employee had not asked to use the vacation time to interrupt the running of the sick leaveperiod. Once the new illness began, the employee also made no attempt to interrupt the period using her previous request for leave.
The justices reiterated that vacation leave may suspend the sick leaveperiod only under specific circumstances – when the leave is requested during a period of illness, or when illness arises during already approved vacation.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the employer acted lawfully in refusing the vacation request. Since no illness was reported at the time of the request, Article 2109 of the Italian Civil Code applied, giving the employer the authority to determine the timing of vacation leave, balancing business needs with employee interests.
As a result of the above, the dismissal was deemed lawful.
Other related insights:
In recent years, terms such as smart working, agile working or workation have become firmly established in the working lexicon. These new ways of working bring with them opportunities and competitiveness, but also new responsibilities and risks, especially in terms of health and safety.
The concept of a “workplace” is no longer only linked to a physical company space. It can be one’s own home, a second home, a library or a coworking space. However, the dematerialisation of work space raises questions: how should security be managed?
Agile work, regulated by Law No. 81/2017, requires the worker to cooperate in the implementation of preventive measures prepared by the employer. The legislator, in fact, has not provided for a transfer of the burden of prevention and self-protection onto the worker.
The phenomenon of workation – from the combination of “work” and “vacation” – is perhaps the most significant representation. More and more people are choosing to work from holiday locations and more and more companies are granting it. The objective? To combine productivity and well-being. But in these cases the risks can be even more complex: inadequate facilities, unstable connections, ergonomically incorrect workstations, social isolation, confusion between working time and leisure time.
The employer always remains at the centre as the main person responsible for the health and safety of company staff. Prevention and Protection Services and Workers’ Safety Representatives must adapt their activities to a (physically) distributed work population, using digital tools to monitor risks and involve workers.
Continue reading the full version published on Itali Oggi.
Managing employee surveillance is a sensitive issue, especially with the rise of new technologies. Recent rulings from Italy’s Court of Cassation have clarified the legal boundaries surrounding this practice.
The role of Investigative Agencies
Employers may use private investigators to check potential employee misconduct, such as unapproved absences or misuse of leave. However, these investigations must be focused, proportional, and lawful, ensuring they do not interfere with an employee’s work duties.
Monitoring company devices
Employers may need to access employees’ devices, such as emails or laptops, especially when there is reasonable suspicion of misconduct. The Italian Supreme Court has recently clarified that checking an employee’s email is only permitted when there is concrete suspicion, and such checks must not be arbitrary or excessive.
Balancing business needs and employee privacy
It is essential to strike a balance between business needs and employee privacy. Surveillance must be justified, proportionate, and never indiscriminate. Employers must ensure they follow legal guidelines to avoid misuse of the information collected.
Best practices
By following these principles, employers can protect their business interests while respecting employee privacy.
Continue reading the full version published on Agenda Digitale.
Exceeding the sick leave period represents a delicate balance between employee rights and business needs. Over the years, case law has provided important guidance on the matter. What checks must the employer carry out, and what are the employee’s responsibilities?
The issue of exceeding the sick leave period is a key aspect of human resource management. On the one hand, employees suffering from serious or prolonged illnesses need sufficient time off to recover without losing their job. On the other hand, businesses must ensure operational continuity and may struggle to manage prolonged absences.
Managing the exceeding of the sick leave period requires a balanced and careful approach. Employers must verify compliance with contractual regulations and act in good faith, avoiding hasty or discriminatory measures.
Employees, in turn, have a duty to properly communicate their condition and comply with the rules set by their contract and the law. Over time, case law has provided essential guidance to balance these interests. However, only a case-by-case assessment can ensure the right equilibrium between employee protection and business needs.
The accrual period is mainly regulated by Article 2110 of the Civil Code, which states that in the event of illness, the employee has the right to keep his job for a period determined by collective agreements. Once this limit has been exceeded, the employer may terminate the relationship, subject to the right to compensation for notice.
Moreover, Law 300/1970 (Workers’ Statute) in Article 18 goes into the merits of the termination of employment: the rule protects the worker from dismissals announced in violation of Article 2110, second paragraph, of the Civil Code, providing the right to reinstatement in the workplace.
Over the years, several Supreme Court rulings have made headlines regarding the exceeding of the sick leave period and have clarified that the employer must consider the specific situation of the employee and evaluate possible alternatives before proceeding with dismissal.
In addition to the case that gained media attention of an employee dismissed when only a few days remained before the end of the sick leave period (Supreme Court Ruling No. 24766/2017), here are some rulings that have made history:
To avoid legal disputes, the employer must carry out careful checks before taking disciplinary measures. In particular, they must:
Continue reading the full version published on HR Link.