With order no. 24991 of September 11, 2025, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that the rules governing electronic resignations and the related right of revocation, set out in Article 26 of Legislative Decree no. 151/2015, also apply where the resignation and the subsequent revocation occur during the probationary period (i.e. “patto di prova”).
The facts of the case and lower court decisions
The dispute arose from an employment relationship established on September 4, 2019, which included a probationary period clause. The following day, September 5, 2019, the employee submitted his resignation, only to revoke it on September 12, 2019, within the seven-day time limit provided by law. The employer, however, did not consider the revocation effective.
The employee therefore brought the matter before the Labor Court, which upheld the claim, declared the revocation valid, and ordered the company to reinstate the worker so that the probationary period could be completed.
The decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, seized by the employer.
The judges of merit based their ruling on the wording of Article 26 of Legislative Decree no. 151/2015, which regulates electronic resignations. They observed that the law expressly excludes its application only to certain categories of employment (domestic work, employment in public administrations) or to particular procedures (resignations formalized before labor authorities), without mentioning the probationary period. The Court of Appeal also considered irrelevant Ministry of Labor Circular no. 12/2016, which had suggested the exclusion of resignations during probation from the electronic procedure, qualifying it as an internal administrative act with no binding legal force for the judiciary, since it introduced a derogation not provided for by primary legislation. The company appealed to the Supreme Court.
The decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, with the order under review, dismissed the employer’s appeal, fully confirming the decision of the lower courts and providing important clarification on the scope of the electronic resignation procedure.
First, the Court addressed the applicability of Article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 151/2015 to resignations during probation. It reiterated that the exceptions provided for in paragraphs 7 and 8-bis of the law are exhaustive and must be strictly interpreted. Since the probationary period is not included among them, the general rule, including the right of revocation within seven days, must be regarded as fully applicable. The Court also rejected the employer’s reliance on the ministerial circular, stressing the non-binding nature of such acts for the judiciary and specifying that, in this case, the circular went beyond mere interpretation, attempting to alter the legislative text.
The Court further emphasized the different ratio of the two institutions: the probationary period aims to protect the parties’ common interest in testing the employment relationship, while Article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 151/2015 seeks to combat the phenomenon of so-called “blank resignations” (i.e. “dimissioni in bianco”, undated resignation letters unlawfully pre-signed by employees at the time of hiring) and to ensure the authenticity of the worker’s will. According to the Court, these purposes do not conflict but operate on distinct levels.
Second, the Supreme Court rejected the employer’s argument regarding the consequences of revocation. The company argued that even if the revocation were effective, the worker would only be entitled to damages, not reinstatement, given the free terminability of the employment relationship during probation under Article 2096 of the Italian Civil Code.
The Court refuted this argument, noting that the case law limiting remedies to damages applies only to cases of unlawful termination by the employer during probation. In this case, instead, the issue concerned the employee’s resignation, which was rendered null and void ex tunc by a timely and valid revocation. The revocation, exercised within the statutory period, removes the resignation from the legal sphere, as if it had never been made. As a result, the employment relationship was never interrupted. The company’s order to reinstate the worker for completion of the probationary period was therefore confirmed by the Supreme Court, without prejudice to the right of either party to terminate during probation once it has lasted long enough.