22 December 2025
Personnel administration
Certified email (PEC) still active after company deregistration: service is valid
Supreme Court, Labour Section

An entrepreneur challenged two payment notices served by INPS, arguing that service by certified email (PEC) was invalid because it had been carried out after the deregistration of his company from the Companies Register. After the claim was dismissed by both the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal, the individual appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court confirmed the validity of electronic service, clarifying that this principle does not derive from insolvency law rules, but from the fact that a PEC mailbox, as long as it remains active, constitutes the digital domicile of the individual for all legal purposes, even if the business activity has ceased. Consequently, notifications sent to that address are deemed to have been validly served.

The Court further reiterated that a professional or business PEC address may also be used for communications unrelated to the main business activity, provided they refer to the same natural person. In this sense, the digital domicile applies to any act served on the individual, as the legal system does not provide for separate addresses for different roles or legal relationships.

The decision consolidates a line of case law that strengthens the effectiveness of electronic notifications, placing on the holder the burden of promptly deactivating or replacing their PEC address if they no longer intend to receive legal communications through that channel.

15 January 2026
Remuneration and benefits
Company car for mixed use: taxation also applies to amounts exceeding the conventional value
Italian Revenue Agency

A company introduced a new corporate policy for cars assigned to managers, known as Car Flexi. Under the scheme, executives could choose an electric or plug-in hybrid vehicle for both business and personal use, contributing to the leasing cost. Specifically, each participating employee paid, via payroll deduction, an amount equal to the conventional fringe benefit value calculated according to ACI tables. In addition, they agreed that the remaining cost of the vehicle would be covered through a reduction in variable remuneration.

The company maintained that this second portion — deducted from variable pay — should also be excluded from taxation, treating it as employee participation in the cost of the vehicle.

The Italian Revenue Agency disagreed. It clarified that only the amount deducted up to the conventional fringe benefit value may reduce taxable income. Any amounts exceeding that threshold must instead be treated as ordinary employment income and are therefore subject to taxation and social security contributions.

In other words, the employee may “neutralise” the taxable value of the company car only up to the limit set by the Italian Income Tax Code (TUIR). Beyond that limit, deducted amounts remain taxable, even if they serve to cover the actual cost of the vehicle.

22 January 2026
Incentives
New impatriate regime: access also granted to cross-border workers returning to Italy
Italian Revenue Agency

A worker resident abroad, employed by an Italian company and registered with AIRE since 2018, asked the Italian Revenue Agency whether, upon returning to Italy in 2026, he could benefit from the new tax incentive regime for impatriate workers introduced by Legislative Decree No. 209/2023. Although he had maintained residence abroad, the individual had continued to travel daily to Italy to perform his work as a cross-border worker (frontaliero).

The Agency clarified that the legislation does not impose any limitation based on where the work activity was carried out during the period of foreign residence. Accordingly, individuals who worked in Italy as cross-border workers may also access the benefit, provided that all other statutory requirements are met, including possession of high qualifications or specialisation and foreign tax residence for at least seven tax periods where the employment relationship continues with the same employer.

It was, however, specified that verification of the “high qualification or specialisation” requirement cannot be the subject of a tax ruling request, as it constitutes a technical assessment reserved to other authorities. Access to the regime therefore remains conditional upon the actual fulfilment of all substantive requirements set out in the incentive legislation.

22 December 2025
Resignations
Implied resignations: no NASpI entitlement where termination is attributable to the employee
INPS

INPS provided clarification on the effects of so-called implied resignations introduced by Article 19 of Law No. 203/2024. Under the new rules, the employer may consider the employment relationship terminated when the employee is unjustifiably absent for a period exceeding that provided for by the applicable collective agreement — or, in its absence, more than fifteen days — after notifying the National Labour Inspectorate. In such cases, termination is deemed to occur at the employee’s initiative and therefore does not give rise to entitlement to NASpI unemployment benefits, as the requirement of involuntary termination is lacking.

INPS specified, however, that activation of this procedure is not mandatory: the employer may alternatively initiate disciplinary proceedings leading to dismissal, in which case the employee retains the possibility of accessing NASpI, provided the other statutory requirements are met. It was also clarified that if the employee subsequently submits a resignation for just cause through the electronic procedure, this will prevail over termination by implied resignation and will allow access to the benefit, provided that the existence of just cause is proven in accordance with established administrative practice.

With the new code “FC – implied resignations”, in force as of 29 January 2025, employers may report such terminations on the UniLav portal, resulting — unless overridden by subsequent resignations for just cause — in exclusion from NASpI entitlement.

19 November 2025
Dismissal for economic reasons
Economic dismissal is lawful where the employer proves the crisis and the impossibility of redeployment
Rome Tribunal

An employee working in the creative team of a company operating in the cybersecurity sector challenged her dismissal for objective justified reason, alleging that the corporate reorganisation was pretextual and that no assessment of possible redeployment had been carried out. The Rome Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the employer had demonstrated a state of economic and financial crisis and the consequent need to downsize areas not directly connected to the company’s core business.

Witness evidence and documentation showed that the employee’s duties as a graphic designer had been effectively eliminated and replaced by artificial intelligence tools, with no subsequent redeployment of staff with similar skills. The Court recalled that, in cases of dismissal for objective justified reason, the employer bears the burden of proving not only the actual existence of the organisational needs relied upon, but also the impossibility of assigning the employee to equivalent or lower-level duties (the so-called repêchage obligation). Such proof may also be provided by presumptions, provided it emerges that available positions were permanently filled and that no new hires compatible with the employee’s profile followed.

In the absence of contrary evidence, the Tribunal therefore held the dismissal to be lawful, confirming the primacy of the employer’s interest in business efficiency in the presence of proven economic difficulties.

8 January 2026
Employment contract – ancillary agreements
Non-compete agreement: duration of employment affects fairness, not validity, of compensation
Supreme Court, Labour Section

An employee challenged a non-compete agreement entered into with the employer, claiming it was null and void due to the indeterminacy of the consideration, set at EUR 5,200 per year, paid in thirteen monthly instalments for the duration of the employment relationship. The Tribunal upheld the claim, declaring the agreement void on the grounds that the total amount of compensation could not be determined in advance.

On appeal, the Rome Court of Appeal overturned the decision, upheld the validity of the agreement, and ordered the employee to repay the sums received and to pay the contractual penalty for breach of the non-compete obligation. In the order under comment, the Supreme Court confirmed the second-instance ruling, clarifying that reference to the duration of the employment relationship does not affect the determinability of the consideration, but only the assessment of its adequacy.

For the validity of the agreement, it is sufficient that the amount be identifiable on an annual basis; nullity arises only in cases of symbolic or manifestly unfair consideration. The Court also reiterated that the adequacy of compensation must be assessed in relation to the sacrifice required of the employee and the scope of the restraint, but cannot be reviewed at the cassation stage where the lower court has provided coherent and logical reasoning. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the penalty — equal to three times the total compensation paid — was not excessive, as it was proportionate to the employer’s interest in protecting the non-compete obligation that had actually been breached.

24 January 2026
Remuneration and benefits
Free shares and employee bonuses: taxation follows the place where the work was performed
Italian Revenue Agency

An Italian company belonging to a French multinational group sought clarification from the Italian Revenue Agency on the tax treatment of incentive plans (in shares and cash) granted to employees who, during the vesting period, had worked abroad and subsequently transferred their residence to Italy. In the case at hand, the French parent company had implemented two plans: a share-based plan providing for the free allocation of shares at the end of the vesting period, and a cash-based plan consisting of annual bonuses linked to company performance.

The uncertainty concerned the taxation in Italy of remuneration received after the employees’ return, but accrued — in whole or in part — for activities carried out abroad. The Italian Revenue Agency clarified that, under double taxation treaties and Article 15 of the OECD Model Convention, taxation must be apportioned in proportion to the days worked in the different States during the vesting period. In particular, income is taxable in the State where the work that generated the entitlement was performed, regardless of when the remuneration is paid or any subsequent change in tax residence.

Accordingly, free shares and cash bonuses received by employees who worked abroad during the vesting period will be taxable only to the extent attributable to work performed in Italy. The Italian employer must act as withholding agent solely for that portion, avoiding double taxation and ensuring coordination with the applicable treaty provisions.