February 12 2026

Non-Compete Clauses in agency contracts: valid even without indemnity

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in Order No. 1226 of January 20, 2026, has confirmed the full validity of non-compete clauses in agency contracts, even in the absence of a specific indemnity. According to the Supreme Court, the indemnity provision in Article 1751-bis of the Civil Code is not enforced by a sanction of nullity and is therefore considered derogable by the parties' autonomy. The decision emphasizes that the professional sacrifice required of the agent may be justified by the overall economic balance of the agency relationship rather than a single monetary consideration. This ruling stabilizes judicial orientation in favor of contractual freedom for businesses, while leaving room for reflection on the legal stability of agreements that are excessively burdensome for professionals without compensation.

The Supreme Court of Cassation, in Order No. 1226 of January 20, 2026, has clarified the validity requirements for non-compete clauses within agency mandates. The ruling establishes that post-contractual non-compete agreementsremain fully effective even when the parties have not provided for a specific financial indemnity. While this orientation offers greater flexibility in drafting contracts, it requires operators to carefully evaluate the overall balance of the professional relationship.

Case Background and Regulatory Framework

The dispute involved a commercial agent challenging the validity of a clause that restricted their professional activities for two years following the termination of the relationship. The claimant argued that the absence of a specific indemnity rendered the commitment void, as it unjustifiably restricted their freedom of economic initiative.

The core of the legal issue lies in the interpretation of Article 1751-bis of the Italian Civil Code. This provision, introduced to implement EU directives, states that acceptance of a non-compete pact involves the payment of a non-commission-based indemnity upon termination. However, the courts were asked to decide whether this provision is mandatory or if it may be derogated from by the will of the parties.

The Supreme Court's Decision: Lack of Compensation Does Not Void the Pact

In Order No. 1226/2026, the Labor Division of the Supreme Court rejected the argument for nullity, confirming that an agency non-compete pact is valid even without an indemnity. The Court based its decision on three fundamental pillars:

Absence of Explicit Sanctions: The legislature did not explicitly provide for the nullity of the pact in the event that no compensation is agreed upon.
Derogability of the Provision: Article 1751-bis of the Civil Code is considered a derogable provision regarding both its application (an) and the method of calculation (quomodo).
Global Contractual Balance: The lack of specific financial valuation for the non-compete commitment may find its "cause" (legal justification) within the broader framework of the economic conditions agreed upon between the principal and the agent throughout the duration of the relationship.

The stated legal principle clarifies that the indemnity is not intended to protect a general public interest, but rather the purely individual interest of the parties, who may legitimately waive it in the exercise of their contractual autonomy.

Operational Implications

The judgment consolidates a "formal" approach that prioritizes the literal wording of the law over more substantive interpretations linked to the contract’s underlying "cause". For businesses, this means they can secure their post-termination client base without the obligation to set aside specific funds, provided the agreement is the result of clear negotiations.

Conversely, the doctrinal debate regarding the "concrete cause" of the transaction remains open. Some experts suggest that an excessive sacrifice of the agent's professional freedom, devoid of any reflected economic utility in the contract, could still be challenged on the grounds of a lack of synallagmatic balance. It is therefore advisable that the gratuitous nature of the pact results from an express and considered choice within the agency mandate.

Unsuitable premises and the right to refuse work: legal protections against retaliatory dismissal

The Supreme Court of Cassation, with ordinance no. 3145 of February 12, 2026, has upheld the nullity of a dismissal issued to an employee who refused to work in premises that were unsuitable and hazardous to health. The ruling clarifies that refusing to perform professional duties constitutes a legitimate exercise of the "exception of non-performance" (Art. 1460 c.c.) when the employer breaches their fundamental safety obligations under Art. 2087 of the Civil Code. Regarding the burden of proof, the Court established that while the worker must only allege the existence of a risk, the employer must demonstrate the actual suitability of the work environment. This decision reinforces protections against retaliatory termination by identifying dismissals based on absences provoked by the employer's own failure to provide safe working conditions as null and void.

Read

February 19 2026

Disciplinary dismissal: reinstatement for legally irrelevant conduct

The Court of Modena, with ruling no. 56 of January 9, 2026, addressed the issue of disciplinary dismissal under the "increasing protections" regime (Jobs Act), establishing a pivotal principle for employee protection. The judgment clarifies that reinstatement protection (tutela reintegratoria) applies not only when the alleged misconduct did not historically occur, but also when the contested fact lacks any disciplinary relevance. In this specific case, informal communications with clients, not barred by explicit company directives, were found insufficient to support a dismissal for cause. The judge identified a substantive defect, affirming that the absence of severity and the lack of proportionality between the sanction and the charge lead to the annulment of the dismissal and the restoration of the employment relationship. This decision underscores that the "non-existence of the material fact" must be interpreted in a legal sense, ensuring reinstatement whenever the conduct is harmless or falls outside the disciplinary scope defined by the National Collective Labor Agreement (CCNL).

Read

February 17 2026

Higher Duties and Job Classification: Supreme Court Ruling 1212/2026

The Supreme Court, with Ordinance No. 1212 of January 20, 2026, has reaffirmed the strict methodological requirements for recognizing higher duties and the corresponding salary differentials. The Court clarified that trial judges cannot rely solely on witness testimony but must apply the "three-phase procedure." This process requires a factual assessment of the duties performed, an analysis of the National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL) classifications, and a precise comparison between the two. The ruling emphasizes that the absence of such a comparative analysis results in a failure to prove the right to a higher job classification, leading to the appeal being upheld in favor of the employer. This principle serves as a key benchmark for managing litigation regarding professional grading and reclassification.

Read