De Luca & Partners

Termination during the probationary period: appeal within five years

Closeup judge wooden gavel on sounding block with blur image of man hand writing on background.

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.

The case

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 ruling

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:    

Exit mobile version