De Luca & Partners participates in “LEGALTECH IN SCENA”
De Luca & Partners will take part in LEGALTECH ON STAGE, an event organised by Global LegalTech Hub (GLTH), taking place in Milan on 11 November 2026. The…
The Court of Milan, with judgment no. 683 of 3 April 2026, reaffirmed that a probationary clause (i.e. “patto di prova”) is valid only if it contains a specific indication of the duties subject to assessment, a generic reference to the contractual classification not being sufficient.
In the case at hand, an employee hired under a fixed-term contract with a four-week probationary period was informed that he had failed the probationary period and, consequently, that the employment relationship was terminated. The employee challenged the measure, claiming the nullity of the probationary clause due to the lack of indication of the duties and seeking, among other things, compensation for damages.
The employer, on the other hand, argued that the requirement was satisfied by reference to the applicable collective agreement (i.e. “CCNL”) and to the recruitment notice, which were considered sufficient to determine the content of the work performance.
The first-instance court upheld the claim, noting that, pursuant to Article 2096 of the Italian Civil Code, the probationary clause requires a precise indication of the duties on which the assessment is to be carried out. This requirement may also be satisfied by reference, provided that such reference is sufficiently specific to allow the concrete identification of the activities to be performed.
In the specific case, this requirement was not considered satisfied: neither the individual contract, nor the recruitment notice, nor the reference to the contractual classification made it possible to identify precisely the duties assigned to the employee during the probationary period, as they were limited to generic descriptions of professional categories.
The Court also highlighted that the employee had already performed similar activities during a previous internship with the same employer, a circumstance that reinforced the need for a clear definition of the scope of the probation.
Having established the nullity of the probationary clause, the employer’s termination was deemed unlawful. However, since the employment relationship was a fixed-term contract, the Court excluded the reinstatement remedy, granting the employee the right to compensation for damages equal to the remuneration that would have accrued until the expiry of the contractual term.
In conclusion, the ruling confirms that a probationary clause requires a clear and specific identification of the duties: a mere generic reference to contractual classifications or collective agreement provisions is not sufficient and results in the nullity of the clause, with the consequent application of the ordinary rules on termination.