By Order no. 40409/2021 dated 28 October 2021, lodged on 16 December 2021, the Court of Cassation reconfirmed the general principle that as collective agreements governed by ordinary law are an expression of the negotiating autonomy of the parties to the agreement, they must be considered valid and effective only within the time period agreed by said parties. The Court therefore holds that the provision that the agreement shall be valid until a new one has been concluded must be considered as the period of validity as it is a continuance in effect clause. In the case in point, the CCNL for private healthcare workers (2002-2005) provided that it would be effective “until conclusion of the new CCNL”. The Court believes that although this expression does not contain a precise chronological framework, it states the contracting parties’ intention to “be bound by the content of the agreement signed until a new one has been negotiated and signed”. The Court also clarifies that if a subsequent regulatory agreement is concluded, it shall be considered valid and effective for the signatory parties only and not for the trade unions that signed the previous agreement but not the amending agreement.

The Cassation Court, in ruling 3542, published 11/2/2021, reiterated case law – if there is no law requiring collective contracts be written based on the freedom of form principle – a unwritten company agreement is still valid. An agreement can be made verbally or by implication. Based on freedom of form and the literal interpretation that certain contracts need a specific form, this freedom must “be found for decisive acts (…), like mutual dissent (…) or unilateral withdrawal (or termination)”.  And, such freedom is established, the party objecting to unilateral withdrawal bears the burden of proof. Thus, the objecting party must demonstrate the existence of an effective verbal cancellation and the purely confirmatory nature of a later communication. According to the Court termination can also be demonstrated by declaratory proof. It also holds that there are no legal impediments to the possibility of testimonial proof because in a labour trial the civil code testimonial proof limits for contracts do not apply and because such limits do not refer to unilateral acts.