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.
