Consensual Termination of Employment: The Court of Cassation and the Validation Procedure (Order no. 15006/2025)

In the complex landscape of Italian labor law, the termination of an employment relationship always represents a delicate moment, both for the employee and the employer. In this context, consensual termination and resignations are frequently used tools, but their effectiveness is strictly linked to compliance with specific procedures. On this subject, the Supreme Court of Cassation, with Order no. 15006, filed on 04/06/2025 (and soon to be published), has provided a fundamental clarification, intended to guide the interpretation and application of the relevant regulations. The ruling, presided over by Dr. A. P. and authored by Dr. E. B., intervenes in an appeal between B. and T., quashing and remanding a previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Venice.

The Necessity of Validation: The Heart of the Matter

The Cassation ruling focuses on the necessity of the validation procedure provided for by Article 4 of Law no. 92 of 2012, also known as the "Fornero Law." This provision was introduced to combat the phenomenon of so-called "blank resignations" and to ensure the genuineness of the employee's consent at the time of termination. But what exactly does it mean when the Cassation states that the effectiveness of such acts is subject to a "suspensive condition"? Let's examine the principle enunciated:

The effectiveness of the consensual termination of the employment relationship (agreed between the parties expressly or through conduct), as well as resignations, is subject to the suspensive condition of the procedure provided for by art. 4 of Law no. 92 of 2012, the non-observance of which places the employment relationship in a state of quiescence.

This passage is crucial. The Court establishes that both resignations and consensual termination – whether explicitly agreed upon or inferred from "facta concludentia" (i.e., conclusive actions that unequivocally manifest the parties' will) – do not immediately produce their termination effects. Their effectiveness is contingent upon the completion of the validation procedure. In other words, until this procedure is completed, the act of terminating the relationship is not fully valid and operative. The reference to Article 1372 of the Civil Code, concerning the effectiveness of contracts, is implicit: a contract can only be dissolved by mutual consent or for causes permitted by law. The Cassation clarifies that mutual consent, in labor law, must follow a specific process to be effective.

Consensual Termination and Resignations: A Shared Path

The Cassation equates consensual termination with resignations regarding the necessity of validation. This equalization is significant because it extends employee protection to situations where the termination of the relationship occurs by mutual agreement, not just at the unilateral initiative of the employee. The aspect of "facta concludentia" is particularly relevant: even if there is no formal written termination agreement, but the parties behave as if the relationship has ended (e.g., the employee no longer reports to work and the employer no longer pays their salary), the effectiveness of such termination remains suspended in the absence of validation.

But what exactly does this "state of quiescence" of the employment relationship entail? It means that the relationship is neither fully active nor definitively extinguished. It is in a sort of legal limbo. The practical implications are manifold:

• For the employee: they retain the possibility of reconsidering and challenging the termination, demonstrating that their will was not genuine or that they did not have the opportunity to validate it. This protects them against non-voluntary or non-conscious terminations.
• For the employer: uncertainty about the definitive termination of the relationship can lead to risks related to a potential employee challenge, with possible claims for damages or reinstatement, even after some time.
• The need to fulfill procedural obligations to ensure the full effectiveness of the act is fundamental for both parties, in order to avoid future disputes and ensure legal certainty.

The Role of Art. 4 of the Fornero Law

Law no. 92 of 2012 introduced the obligation to validate resignations and consensual terminations at the Territorial Labor Directorate (now Territorial Labor Inspectorate - ITL), Employment Centers, union offices, or, subsequently, also through electronic procedures. The primary purpose was, and remains, to protect the employee from possible abuses, such as the aforementioned "blank resignations," ensuring that their will to terminate the relationship is free, conscious, and not extorted. The Cassation, with this order (which aligns with previous rulings such as no. 21297 of 2019), strengthens this protection, confirming that non-compliance with the procedure is not a mere formal defect, but affects the very effectiveness of the termination act.

Conclusions and Practical Implications for Companies and Employees

Order no. 15006/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents an important warning for all parties involved in employment relationships. It strongly reiterates that the validation procedure, introduced by art. 4 of Law no. 92/2012, is not a mere formal requirement, but an essential condition for the effectiveness of crucial acts such as resignations and consensual terminations. Its omission does not lead to the annulment of the act, but keeps it in a state of 'quiescence,' with all the uncertainties and risks that derive from it. For employees and employers, the message is clear: maximum attention to compliance with legal procedures is fundamental to ensure legal certainty and prevent litigation. Relying on expert professionals is always the wisest choice to navigate a constantly evolving regulatory landscape and ensure the correct management of every phase of the employment relationship.