{"id":25593,"date":"2025-05-02T09:43:09","date_gmt":"2025-05-02T07:43:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/news\/recesso-in-prova-ricorso-entro-cinque-anni-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-08T14:25:18","modified_gmt":"2026-04-08T12:25:18","slug":"recesso-in-prova-ricorso-entro-cinque-anni","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.delucapartners.it\/en\/news\/termination-during-the-probationary-period-appeal-within-five-years\/","title":{"rendered":"Termination during the probationary period: appeal within five years"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

With the recent ruling no. 9282 of April 8, 2025<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A company decided to terminate the employee\u2019s contract during the probationary period for failing<\/a> to pass the probationary evaluation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court of Appeal of Venice, confirming the first-instance judgment, ruled that the employee\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The ruling<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Italian Supreme Court, in ruling no. 9282\/2025, upheld the employee\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As a result, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other related insights:   <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n