Categories: Insights


5 May 2015

COURT OF CASSATION, 6 MAY 2015, NO. 18667: WHEN A CONTRACT IS ILLEGAL

With its ruling no. 18667 of 6 May 2015, the Court of Cassation confirmed that, for the allegation of an illegal contract it is not sufficient to prove that the customer gave orders to the contractor’s employees but it is necessary to investigate the contents of such orders and prove that they regard the provision of work actually performed. This is true if the instructions given to the “contracted” workers only regard the result of their work (which in itself may be the actual subject matter of the contract), without resulting in grounds for censure and punishment under the law. Specifically, according to the Supreme Court’s opinion, the crime of illegal contract occurs when there is simultaneous proof of (i) actual lack of existence of a company risk; (ii) failure to organise, no matter why, the necessary equipment for performance of the contract; (iii) absence of organizational and direct power over the workers, not excluding, per se, any orders given by the customer. This clarification of the principle is worthy of note because it will not only overturns the dynamics of criminal investigations of contracts for services by labour inspectors and the Courts but it will also improve the organisation of labour intensive contracts. Basically, a clear warning to lower court judges not to adhere to preconceived accusatorial arguments.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Contact

Need information? Write to us and our team of experts will respond as soon as possible.

Fill in the form

More news and insights

12 Oct 2026

“AI tools, remote work and confidential data: employer liability in a borderless environment” – IBA Conference 2026

At the IBA Annual Conference 2026 in Copenhagen, our Managing Partner Vittorio De Luca moderated a panel on one of the most pressing challenges facing employers today: the…

1 Oct 2026

Corporate e-mail and defensive monitoring: when the GDPR and employment law lead to different outcomes 

The Piaggio case clearly illustrates how the same set of facts can give rise to profoundly different assessments depending on the perspective adopted. In its decision of 13…

1 Oct 2026

NASpI and Reinstatement: the Employee’s Election Causes Loss of the Benefit 

Headnote   In its recent judgment No. 24981 of 3 September 2026, the Italian Supreme Court held that, where a dismissal is set aside with an order of reinstatement…

1 Oct 2026

Did you know that… testimony given in court may have disciplinary relevance and, in the most serious cases, justify dismissal? 

The Italian Supreme Court, Labour Section, by order no. 25687 of 22 September 2026, addressed the issue of the disciplinary relevance of statements made by an employee in…

29 Sep 2026

Shadow AI in the workplace: how to govern risks, data, and security (Agenda digitale, 29 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Martina De Angeli)

The spread of artificial intelligence tools used without corporate authorization exposes businesses to risks involving personal data, confidential information, know-how, and cybersecurity. To govern Shadow AI, organizations need…

24 Sep 2026

The concept of “territorial scope” in a non-compete agreement (Top24 Lavoro Ai – Il Sole 24 Ore, 24 September 2026 – Vittorio De Luca and Alessandro Ferrari)

Interpretative issues in light of the most recent case law on the nullity of non-compete agreements due to the indeterminacy of territorial scope By an order issued on…