Project Contracts and the Three-Year Limit: Cassation Court Ordinance No. 17550/2025 on Legislative Decree No. 368/2001

The landscape of labor law is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Court of Cassation play a fundamental role in clarifying the application of norms and ensuring worker protection. A recent Ordinance, No. 17550 of June 30, 2025, fits into this context, addressing a matter of considerable practical relevance: the calculation of periods of work performed under the old "project contracts" for the purpose of complying with the three-year limit for fixed-term contracts. The Supreme Court's decision, which saw B. versus A. as parties, represents an important benchmark for understanding the dynamics of contractual reclassification and its consequences.

The Nature of Project Contracts and Judicial Reclassification

Before delving into the core of the ruling, it is useful to take a step back to understand the regulatory context. "Project contracts" were a specific type of coordinated and continuous collaboration (co.co.co.) introduced by the Biagi Law (Legislative Decree No. 276/2003) and later abolished by the Jobs Act (Legislative Decree No. 81/2015). They provided for the execution of one or more specific projects by the collaborator, but often, in practice, they were used to disguise genuine subordinate employment relationships, depriving the worker of the typical protections of the latter.

Precisely to remedy these situations, jurisprudence has developed the concept of "judicial reclassification": in the presence of typical elements of subordination (such as subjection to the employer's directive and disciplinary power, integration into the company organization, observance of working hours and shifts), the judge can ascertain that, despite the contractual form adopted (e.g., project contract), the substance of the relationship is that of subordinate employment. Once this ascertainment has "become final," meaning it is definitive and no longer appealable, the relationship is considered, for all intents and purposes, as subordinate employment from its inception.

The Three-Year Limit for Fixed-Term Contracts: Article 5 of Legislative Decree No. 368/2001

A crucial aspect of fixed-term subordinate employment is its duration. Legislative Decree No. 368 of 2001 (the norm applicable ratione temporis, i.e., based on the time when the events occurred and which the ruling explicitly refers to) established in Article 5 a maximum overall duration limit for fixed-term contracts entered into between the same employer and the same employee, including any renewals and extensions. This limit was set, in the version of interest, at three years. The objective of the norm was clear: to prevent the misuse of fixed-term contracts, which should represent an exception to the rule of indefinite-term contracts, ensuring greater job stability.

The Cassation Court's Ruling and Its Meaning

It is within this framework that Ordinance No. 17550 of 30/06/2025, issued by the Labor Section of the Court of Cassation, which upheld B.'s appeal against A., quashing and remanding the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Florence of 24/03/2022, is situated. The ruling expressed by the Court is of fundamental importance:

Project contracts, in case of reclassification (with final judicial ascertainment) as fixed-term subordinate employment contracts, must be considered for the purpose of verifying the exceeding of the three-year term referred to in art. 5 of Legislative Decree No. 368 of 2001, ratione temporis applicable.

This statement unequivocally clarifies that, once a project contract is recognized as a genuine fixed-term subordinate employment contract through a final judgment, the periods of work performed under that contract must be counted in the calculation of the three-year limit. In other words, it is not possible to "reset" the three-year limit count simply because the relationship was initially disguised as a project contract. The phrase "ratione temporis applicable" emphasizes that the assessment must be made according to the legislation in force at the time of the events, in this case Legislative Decree No. 368/2001.

The implications of this decision are manifold:

• Worker Protection: The worker whose project contract has been reclassified as fixed-term subordinate employment can assert the exceeding of the three-year limit to obtain the conversion of the relationship to an indefinite term, thus enjoying greater protection and stability.
• Deterrence for Employers: The ruling discourages the improper use of atypical contractual forms to circumvent the rules on subordinate employment and fixed-term contracts.
• Interpretive Clarity: The Cassation Court provides a univocal interpretation on an issue that could have generated uncertainty, contributing to legal certainty.

Conclusions

Ordinance No. 17550 of 30/06/2025 by the Court of Cassation reiterates a cardinal principle of labor law: the prevalence of substance over form. Where an apparently autonomous collaboration relationship turns out, due to its concrete characteristics, to be a genuine fixed-term subordinate employment relationship, all periods of employment must be considered for the purpose of complying with the time limits imposed by law. This decision is a warning to employers for transparent and lawful management of contractual relationships, and an important guarantee for workers who see the continuity and actual nature of their professional commitment recognized. For any doubts or need for further clarification on these delicate issues, it is always advisable to consult with professionals expert in labor law.