{"id":25009,"date":"2023-01-30T15:08:22","date_gmt":"2023-01-30T14:08:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/reclassification-of-the-self-employment-relationship-even-in-the-absence-of-direct-evidence-of-employer-direction\/"},"modified":"2026-04-07T10:17:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T08:17:03","slug":"reclassification-of-the-self-employment-relationship-even-in-the-absence-of-direct-evidence-of-employer-direction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/insights\/reclassification-of-the-self-employment-relationship-even-in-the-absence-of-direct-evidence-of-employer-direction\/","title":{"rendered":"Reclassification of the self-employment relationship even in the absence of direct evidence of employer direction"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Italian Court of Cassation, by order No 1095 of 16 January 2023, held that for the purpose of reclassifying a relationship of self-employment into a subordinate one, it is possible to use subsidiary evidence (such as the continuity of service, compliance with a predetermined schedule, the receipt of a fixed monthly fee, the absence of risk and an organisational structure on the part of the worker) where there is no direct evidence of employer direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The facts of the case<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s decision arises from proceedings brought by an IT consultant who had worked under multiple consecutive self-employment contracts, on behalf of the principal, as a system assistant at the judicial offices of Arezzo.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Pisa, in the first instance, had rejected the application for reclassification, confirming the self-employment nature of the relationship in the absence of proof of the employer\u2019s direction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The worker appealed against this decision before the Florence Court of Appeal complaining that the first-instance judge had not given enough importance to all the evidence that, although not sufficient to demonstrate employer direction, was sufficient to constitute proof of the subordinate relationship between them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the context of the second instance judgment, the territorial Court, overturning the decision of the first instance judge, held that there was an employment relationship based on the following evidence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n