According to the Court, imposing a rigid cap on the indemnity without allowing the Tribunale any room for further evaluation of the specifics of the case undermines the effectiveness of the protection afforded to employees and does not serve as a deterrent against unlawful terminations.

The ruling does not challenge the legitimacy of a system that, for smaller companies, provides a differentiated regime based on reduced indemnity. That choice by the legislator is not questioned per se; rather, it is the rigidity of the upper limit that is deemed incompatible with constitutional principles, as it prevents any real assessment of the damage based on the peculiarities of the case.

As a result of the unconstitutionality of Article 9(1), limited to the words "and may not in any case exceed the limit of six months' salary", the indemnity in the case of smaller companies may now be adjusted by a judge between 3 and 18 months’ salary—i.e., half of the range provided for companies that exceed the numerical threshold.

The decision also notes that the number of employees is no longer a reliable indicator of a company’s real economic strength in the current economic scenario. As a result, the Court invites the legislator, in the event of a review of the applicable laws, to consider the introduction of additional parameters to calibrate the size of compensation in a manner more consistent with the actual characteristics of the employer.

The Constitutional Court had already raised concerns on the matter with decision No. 183 in 2022 and emphasized the existing misalignment between the rules applicable to smaller employers and constitutional principles. At that time, however, the Court decided not to intervene with a ruling and instead called for a reform of the matter, which has not been implemented.

Article edited by the Labor Department. For more information click here

This move is part of a strategic plan to strengthen the Labour department, which started a few months ago with the arrival of lawyer Patrizio Bernardo and his team. 

The new group will be based in Rome, ensuring better coverage of the area and an increasingly structured service that is closer to local clients.

ADVANT Nctm welcomes Enrico Boursier Niutta, Partner, and a team composed of Carlo Boursier Niutta (Of Counsel), an authoritative figure in the field, and Patrizio Maria Raimondi (Of Counsel), Antonio Armentano (Counsel), Paolo Angeli, Antonio La Bella and Mattia Grupposo (Advisors), Rosalina Panetta (Senior Associate) and Giulia Clementi (Associate), as well as two staff members.

As a result of the addition of Studio Boursier Niutta & Partners, ADVANT Nctm's Labour Department strengthens its position among the leading players in the sector, achieving a size and level of expertise among the most significant in the market, with 37 professionals. 

Enrico Boursier Niutta has significant experience in assisting domestic and international clients in the field of labour and trade union law and provides advice and assistance to companies in all areas of labour law, with particular focus on the following matters: corporate restructuring, incentive plans for executives, MBOs and fringe benefits, individual and collective dismissals, transfers of businesses, industrial relations and agency agreements.

Paolo Montironi, Senior Partner at ADVANT Nctm, comments: “We are thrilled to have reached this important deal with Enrico, Carlo, and their team. ADVANT Nctm keeps proving itself as an attractive place for boutique firms and well-known professionals, thanks to the quality of its organisation and a modern and transparent partnership model that values their skills while keeping their identity, offering at the same time the perfect space for growing business projects and professional relationships, as demonstrated by the recent additions of Studio Berlingieri (shipping, 2023) and Studio Zitiello (regulatory, 2024)”.

The total number of ADVANT Nctm partners now rises to 84.

With the arrival of Patrizio Bernardo and his team, which includes Claudia Schmiedt (senior associate), Francesca Retus (associate), two trainees (Sara Salmeri and Emiliano Ferrari) and one staff member (Angelica Tamburrano), the practice is further enhanced, reaching a total of 28 professionals.

Patrizio Bernardo has a solid experience in labour law, both at national and international level, assisting medium and large-sized companies in all matters relating to the management of employment relationships, both in and out of court, including, in particular, the drafting of employment contracts for managers and post-contractual non-compete agreements, remuneration policies, health and safety at work, individual and collective dismissals, management of social shock absorbers, industrial relations and negotiation of collective agreements.

"With his expertise, Patrizio Bernardo will further contribute to the strengthening of ADVANT Nctm's position as a reference point in the field of labour law. We are excited to welcome him and his team and are certain that this collaboration will bring further added value to both our firm and our clients, while contributing to ADVANT Nctm's continued growth" commented Paolo Montironi, Senior Partner of ADVANT Nctm. 

With Patrizio Bernardo, the total number of ADVANT Nctm partners rises to 79.

High-Risk AI systems under the EU AI Act In a employment context, the new regulation concerns foremost:
a) AI systems intended to be used for the recruitment or selection of natural persons, in particular to place targeted job advertisements, to analyze and filter job applications, and to evaluate candidates. 
b) AI systems intended to be used to make decisions affecting terms of work-related relationships, the promotion or termination of work-related contractual relationships, to allocate tasks based on individual behavior or personal traits or characteristics or to monitor and evaluate the performance and behavior of persons in such relationships.

The most important requirements for high-risk AI systems at a glance 

The providers of high-risk AI systems bear the following obligations: 

• Quality and risk management
• Technical documentation, record-keeping and logging obligations
• Consideration of accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity and accessibility during development
• Transparency and information obligations
• Registration in the relevant EU database and cooperation with the competent authority

Those who only deploy of high-risk AI systems generally have to fulfil fewer requirements than providers. However, there may be scenarios in which they can be subject to the same extensive obligations as the providers of high-risk AI systems.

Looking ahead, the AI Liability is poised to complement the EU AI Act. It aims to streamline legal pathways for individuals harmed by AI systems, including in employment related situations. However, the legislative process is still in its early stages and only rarely does a directive emerge from the legislative process in the form in which it was presented by the EU Commission.

Click here for the document

The main issue raised by the two States (which had also voted against the Directive during the approval process) is whether it exceeds the division of competences between the European Union and its Member States, as defined by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Denmark, the main complainant, argues that the Directive exceeds such limits.

According to the Advocate General, the Directive does indeed exceed them, in that it represents a “direct interference” in the area of “pay”, which Article 153(5) of the TFEU expressly excludes from the competence of the European Union.

In essence, according to such interpretation, what matters is not only the fact that the Directive does not directly set wages, but its objective of regulating pay, no matter how strictly or flexibly. Therefore, even a procedural action aimed at regulating “pay” would constitute direct interference and breach the TFEU, it being a matter of exclusive national competence.

The action was brought by Denmark and Sweden, while Germany, France and Spain (among others) took a stand against said position.

Are Denmark and Sweden against the minimum wage?

As underlined by the Advocate General, “The present action does not arise in a vacuum, as it is intrinsically linked to Denmark’s and other Nordic Member States’ constant opposition to European Union actions which they regard as interfering with their labour law and industrial relations systems”.

It is clear, in fact, that Denmark and Sweden are not opposing minimum guarantees for workers. Both countries have a collective bargaining coverage rate of over 80%, ensuring extensive protection for workers. However, their opposition is based on the established model of labour law and industrial relations, which emphasises the autonomy of the social partners. In both countries, wages and working conditions are not regulated by statutory act, but determined through collective bargaining.

The objection, therefore, does not concern the content and principles of the Directive – both countries being already bound by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Minimum Wage Fixing Convention of 1970 – but rather the principle of non-interference in the areas of pay and the right of association (another aspect under dispute).

Where does the European Union stand in terms of minimum wages?

To date, 22 of the 27 member states of the European Union have national minimum wages established by law. The five countries that still do not have minimum wages are Denmark, Italy, Austria, Finland and Sweden. The amounts vary considerably within the EU, ranging from 2,638 Euros per month in Luxembourg to 550.66 Euros in Bulgaria.

So what about Italy?

In Italy, the debate on the introduction of legal minimum wages has been a major topic of discussion in 2024, especially in light of news stories and court rulings that shed light on the problem of poor work and the shortcomings of certain collective agreements with respect to the constitutional principle of proportionality and adequacy of wages. Such a principle, according to established case law, is immediately enforceable.

The National Council for Economics and Labour (CNEL) – which many considered abolishing over time – played an important role in the debate. The CNEL carried out an investigation upon completion of which it issued an opinion, arguing that the phenomenon of poor work should be evaluated in broader terms than just the introduction of minimum wages, and emphasising the role of collective bargaining.

The opinion highlights that the Directive, as is known, does not impose on Member States an obligation to establish adequate minimum wages by law. Where a solid and comprehensive collective bargaining system is already in place, with pay rates defined by relevant representatives, no further checks or compliance measures are required. 

In Italy, the collective bargaining coverage rate is close to 100%. Nonetheless, some critical issues remain, such as the delay in collective bargaining renewals, although the CNEL believes that the system has corrective tools to manage periods of contractual vacancy. As far as the so-called “pirate bargaining” is concerned, 96.5% of the workers whose applied contract is known are covered by an agreement signed by the main trade unions (CGIL, CISL and UIL).

In any case, the CNEL concludes by suggesting the adoption of a plan to support collective bargaining, bearing in mind the wage issue and the existence of fraudulent and elusive practices.

***

According to the National Institute for the Analysis of Public Policies (INAPP), the introduction of a minimum wage of 9 Euros gross per hour would apply to about 21% of employees, equal to 2.6 million people. For companies, the estimated cost – excluding compulsory social security contributions and severance pay, calculated on the gross monthly salary – would be around 6.7 billion Euros.

Procurement is a crucial sector for the economy and business strategies, but it has also sadly hit the headlines as a possible breeding ground for unfair practices, up to and including outright labour exploitation. The year 2024 saw the action of various institutions to counter such phenomena. In particular the judiciary (with the Court of Milan at the forefront) stood out for its initiatives, involving multiple sectors (especially fashion and logistics).

Investigations by Public Prosecutor's offices have uncovered phenomena in which companies that were the final beneficiaries of subcontracting chains were ultimately aware or unaware beneficiaries of labour exploitation schemes, not only in economically vulnerable sectors, but also in high-margin production sectors and with no geographical distinction across the country.

In the context of said renewed attention to the topic - which, to tell the truth, has been characterised for some time now by great regulatory vitality (suffice it to think of the countless amendments to the joint and several liability regime) - there arises, most recently, the action of lawmakers with Decree-Law No. 19 of 2024.

2. The reintroduction of criminal liability

Decree Law No. 19 of 2 March 2024, which was published in Official Gazette No. 52 of 2 March 2024 and came into force on the same day, has introduced significant changes in the field of procurement. Subsequently, it was converted into law, with amendments, through Law No. 56 of 29 April 2024, which was published in Official Gazette No. 102 of 29 April 2024 and came into force on 30 April 2024.

One of the most significant novelties introduced by the Decree Law is the reintroduction of criminal liability for infringements related to illegal employment of labour. The penalties, which were abolished or mitigated with the decriminalisation of 2016, are now reinforced to fight phenomena such as the abusive supply of labour, the unlawful use of labour and unlawful posting.

Said legislative choice aims to limit unfair and anti-competitive practices, while at the same time offering greater protection to workers even in situations where there is no labour exploitation, but where there are simulation phenomena or, in any case, the exercise of protected activities, such as staff leasing, without the necessary authorisations. 

3. In detail: penalties

The legislation establishes a detailed penalty system for specific breaches. 

Here is a summary:

a) Unauthorised staff leasing

• For the provider: imprisonment of up to one month or a fine of 60 Euro per day/worker, with aggravating circumstances in the case of minors.
• For users: a fine of 50 euro per day/worker, also applicable if the permitted limits are exceeded.

b) Non-genuine procurement and posting

• Imprisonment of up to one month or fine of 60 Euro per day/worker for both parties.

c) Fraudulent staff leasing

• Imprisonment of up to 3 months and/or fine of 100 Euro per day/worker for both parties.

d) Unauthorised mediation

• Imprisonment of up to 6 months and fine of between 1,500 and 7,000 Euro.

e) Unauthorised search and selection of personnel or outplacement

• Imprisonment of up to 3 months and fine of between 900 and 4,500 Euro.

4. Guarantees on minimum economic and regulatory treatment

In addition, a general rule has been introduced which states that “Personnel employed in the procurement of works or services and in subcontracting shall be entitled to an economic and regulatory treatment that is on the whole not lower than that provided for by the national and local collective bargaining agreement entered into by the trade unions of workers and employers that are comparatively more representative at national level, applied in the sector and for the area strictly related to the activity that is the subject of procurement and subcontracting”.

The provision is not easy to apply given the difficulty of defining the concept of comparatively most representative trade union, due to the variety and uncertainty of the criteria used. 

Moreover, also the reference to the collective bargaining agreement applied by sector and area represents a different concept from the concept used in other regulatory sources, with correlated doubts as to interpretation and application. Needless to say that, if one thinks of the “sector”, there are several national collective bargaining agreements (even considering those that are actually representative) that cover the same activities and could therefore be taken as a reference.

5. A fairer market?

Will the new rules succeed in improving working conditions and promoting a more transparent and truly competitive market? To answer the question, it will be necessary to evaluate the concrete effects of the application of the rules outlined above by the judiciary and inspection bodies.

In the meantime, the debate remains open. 

The promotion is part of ADVANT Nctm's internal growth strategy aimed at enhancing its talents.

Roberto de Nardis di Prata has more than 20 years of experience in the areas of banking and finance law and debt capital markets, focusing on acquisition, leveraged and real estate finance, corporate lending, basket bond issues and debt restructurings. Roberto assists both primary lenders - banks and debt funds - and sponsors and industrial companies in financing transactions as well as private debt operators.

Francesca Pittau is an expert in employment law and assists Italian and international clients in the management of human resources at every stage, with particular focus on corporate reorganization and restructuring processes. In addition, Francesca is involved in the development and implementation of incentive plans for key managers, welfare policies, and diversity and inclusion activities.Alessia Trevisan works in M&A and, in particular, private equity and venture capital.Alessia assists investment funds, both Italian and foreign, industrial companies, family-office, venture capital funds in investment and divestment transactions, as well as managers in structuring and implementing incentive plans.

Federico Vecchio works in both extrajudicial and judicial assistance to leading national and multinational groups in litigation including arbitration and extraordinary corporate transactions. In addition, Federico has also developed a deep knowledge of sports law thanks to positions held in the justice bodies of CONI and various national and international sports federations.   

• Law no. 104/1992: the burden of care must be flexible
• The waiver of indemnity in lieu of notice during conciliation proceedings is unenforceable against INPS
• Collective redundancies: limitation to certain production units is lawful
• Exclusion of indemnity in lieu of notice of dismissal from the calculation of severance pay
• Mailbox as a "dedicated space" for union activity

Regulatory framework

• Transparency decree and privacy: some guidance from the data protection authority
• Resignation of father worker on paternity leave and access to Naspi unemployment benefit: some clarifications

Click here

a) in the cases provided for by collective bargaining agreements referred to in Article 51 [i.e. agreements at each level entered into by the organisations that are comparatively more representative at national level, as well as company collective agreements entered into by their company or unitary union representative bodies];

b) in the absence of the provisions referred to in point a), in the collective agreements applied at company level, and in any case by 30 April 2024, for technical, organisational or production requirements indicated by the parties;

c) b-bis)  as a replacement for other workers”.

• direct discrimination “where, based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation, one person is treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation” (point a);
• indirect discrimination “where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons”.

Article 5 likewise provides that “[i]n order to guarantee compliance with the principle of equal treatment in relation to persons with disabilities, reasonable accommodation shall be provided. This means that employers shall take appropriate measures, where needed in a particular case, to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment, or to undergo training, unless such measures would impose a disproportionate burden on the employer.”Article  3, paragraph 3 bis of Legislative Decree No 216/2003 likewise provides that  employers shall adopt “reasonable accomodation” to ensure that people with disabilities have equal treatment with respect to other workers.That being said, some Italian courts - in application of the principles set out above - have held that, for the purposes of imposing a dismissal, providing for a disabled person the same period of grace as a non-disabled person, openly conflicts with the principle of equal treatment, resulting, as a matter of fact, in a situation of indirect discrimination within the scope of Directive 2000/78/EC. Dismissals for exceeding the grace period were found to be null and void, as being deemed in breach of that principle, regardless of(i) the employer being or not aware that the worker’s sickness absence relates the condition from which he or she suffers; and(ii) the collective bargaining agreement lacking a specific  regulation on the grace period applicable to workers with disabilities.It is worth mentioning, for example, the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Brescia, Labour Division, of 23 June 2022: “…the company’s conduct in applying the provisions of the sector’s collective bargaining agreement on the grace period, without providing for differential treatment for disabled workers, in excluding from the illnesses to be considered for the purposes of the grace period those related to the pathologies causing the disability, amounted to indirect discrimination against the worker, thus causing the dismissal of the worker for exceeding the grace period to be null and void”.Likewise: “The application to the applicant, who was absent due to sickness attributable to his/her disability status, of the same provision for the counting of sickness absencies for the purposes of the grace period applying to “non-disabled” workers, amounts to indirect discrimination, such as to involve dismissal based on the aforementioned contractual provision being null and void” (decision of the Court of Verona dated 21 March  2021; accordingly, Court of Mantua No. 126 dated 22 September 2021; Court of Appeal of Genoa No. 211 dated  21 July 2021). ConclusionsIn light of the new case law mentioned above - which, in any case, poses quite a few doubts in terms of legal certainty -, in order to prevent any dismissals of disabled workers for exceeding the grace period to be found null and void, a good practice might be to provide, by company regulations or trade union agreements, a longer grace period for workers with disabilities, in order to balance the need to safeguard the most fragile individuals with the company’s organisational and productive needs. If the company nevertheless intends to apply the standard grace period under the collective bargaining agreement and, when challenging the dismissal, elements emerge proving that the absences were caused by pathologies associated with the state of disability, one should assess the likely consequences of a legal action (which - as noted above - might result in the imposition of the maximum sanction, i.e. reinstatement and full compensation) and, therefore, any conciliation solutions. This article is for information purposes only and is not, and cannot be intended as, a professional opinion on the topics dealt with. For any further information please contact Chiara Zecchetto.

Extension of special measures on social shock absorbers to all the Italian territory

1. Ordinary salary integration and ordinary allowance (Article 19 of the Decree)

• employers falling within the scope of the Ordinary Redundancy Fund (“Cassa Integrazione Guadagni Ordinaria”);
• employers registered with the Salary Integration Fund, with more than 5 employees;
• employers registered with bilateral solidarity Funds pursuant to Article 26 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 14 September 2015;
• employers registered with alternative Funds pursuant to Article 27 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 14 September 2015;
• employers registered with bilateral solidarity Funds of the Trentino Alto Adige Region.

Beneficiaries will be all workers who were employed by the applicant employers on 23 February 2020 and who are not required to have worked for at least 90 days on the date of submission of the application [1].INPS has specified that the presence of previous holidays is not an impediment to the possible acceptance of the application for Ordinary Redundancy Fund or ordinary allowance.As confirmed by INPS Circular No. 47/2020, the salary integration replaces the daily sickness allowance in the event of illness, as well as any supplement provided for by contract.Duration and time-limits. No assessment of causal requirementsThe application can cover periods commencing on 23 February 2020, up to a maximum duration of 9 weeks, and, in any case, up to August 2020.INPS has also specified that the salary integration provided for by Decree Law No. 9 of 2 March 2020, with reference to specific areas of the country, is in addition to the ordinary salary integration and ordinary allowance provided for by the Decree. To this end, it is a necessary requirement that there is no overlap in time between the two measures or that workers receiving the benefits are different.Submission of the application. No assessment of causal requirementsThe application shall be submitted within the end of the fourth month following the one in which the working activity suspension or reduction has commenced and is not subject to the assessment of causal requirements, normally carried out. Hence, the company does not need to attach the technical report to the application, but only the list of workers who will receive the benefit stating as reason "National emergency COVID-19".On 30 March 2020, an Agreement was signed by the social partners and the Italian Banking Association with the aim of defining a procedure for the advance payment of ordinary salary integration benefits and exceptional benefits for the emergency by the participating Banks, for an amount equal to Euro 1,400.00, calculated on the basis of a 9-week suspension at zero hours and reduced proportionally in the event of shorter duration and part-time employment. The advance is due to workers entitled to all income support measures referred to in Articles 19 to 22 of the Decree and subsequent regulatory measures in force, in favour of employees of employers who have suspended them from work at zero hours and have applied for direct payment by INPS.The parties have also expressed their commitment to prepare the necessary forms to extend the advance also to the hypothesis of a reduction not to zero hours.Information, consultations and possible joint examination phaseEmployers submitting the application are anyway subject to the obligation of information, consultation and joint examination, also by electronic means, within the three days following the preliminary notification [2].Effects on the maximum duration of the ordinary and extraordinary salary integrationThe periods of salary integration and ordinary allowance granted for events linked to the COVID-19 outbreak emergency are not counted for the purposes of the maximum aggregate duration of the ordinary and extraordinary salary integration and access to the solidarity funds, provided by the relevant provisions on social shock absorbers during the employment relationship. Therefore, such periods shall not be taken into account for the purposes of further applications.Company Cap and Additional ContributionsOnly for year 2020, the ordinary allowance granted by the Fund for Salary Integration is not subject to the company cap, consisting of an amount equal to 10 times the ordinary contributions due by the same employer.Moreover, no further contribution shall be paid as a result of such instruments, in derogation from the ordinary provisions under Legislative Decree No. 14 of 15 September 2015.Ordinary allowance: beneficiary and payment methodThe ordinary allowance is granted for the period stated and in the year 2020, also to employees of employers registered with the Salary Integration Fund (FIS) that employ more than 5 workers on average.Moreover, at the employer request, such instrument may be granted by way of indirect payment by the Italian National Institute for Social Security (INPS). The same method shall apply to payments made by alternative bilateral solidarity funds and bilateral solidarity funds of Trentino and Alto Adige.

2. Salary integration for companies already under Extraordinary Redundancy Fund (“Cassa integrazione Straordinaria”) (Article 20 of the Decree)

3. Ordinary allowance for employers currently receiving solidarity allowance (Article 21 of the Decree)

• determines the suspension of the solidarity allowance already being paid, which is therefore replaced;
• may also cover the same workers included in the scope of the solidarity allowance for full working time coverage.

Effects on the maximum overall duration of the ordinary and extraordinary salary integration envisagedThe periods of co-existence of the solidarity allowance with the ordinary allowance for events linked to the COVID-19 outbreak emergency shall not be computed for the purposes of the maximum overall duration of the ordinary and extraordinary salary integration and access to solidarity funds provided for by the legislation on social shock absorbers during the employment relationship (in particular, the limits provided for under Article 4, paragraphs 1 and 2 and under Article 29, paragraph 3 of Legislative Decree No. 148 of 14 September 2015). Therefore, such periods are neutralised for the purpose of subsequent applications.The wording of the provision raises more than one interpretative doubt and a clarification in this respect is expected.Additional contributionLimited to the periods of ordinary allowance granted for events related to the epidemiological emergency from COVID-19, no additional contribution shall be paid as a consequence of the use of the instrument.

4. New provisions concerning the “exceptional" Redundancy Fund (Article 22 of the Decree)

Special provisions on the reduction of working time and support for workers

1. COVID-19 emergency leave and allowances for private-sector employees, workers enrolled in the INPS’s special fund for self-employed workers (“gestione separata”) and the self-employed (article 23 of the Decree)

• is subject to the condition that in the household there is no other parent receiving income support instruments in the event of suspension or cessation of employment or other unemployed or non-working parent;
• provides for the payment of an allowance equal to 50 per cent of the salary. The periods concerned are covered by imputed social security contributions;
• replaces any periods of parental leave enjoyed by parents during the period of suspension of childhood education services and teaching activities in schools of all levels and degrees, with entitlement to the corresponding allowance, and is not counted or compensated as parental leave.

Unpaid leave for parentsParents employed in the private sector with minor children between the ages of 12 and 16 – provided that in the household there is no other parent receiving income support in the event of suspension or cessation of work or that no non-working parent is present – have the right to abstain from work for the period of suspension of childcare services and educational activities in schools of all levels and degrees, without payment of compensation or of imputed social security contributions, with a ban on dismissal and the privilege of job retention.COVID-19 emergency leave for working parents enrolled exclusively in the INPS’s special fund for self-employed workersWorking parents enrolled exclusively in the INPS’s special fund for self-employed workers are entitled, for children not older than 12 years of age, to a specific leave for which an allowance is paid equal to 50 per cent of 1/365 of the income identified according to the calculation basis used to determine the maternity allowance for each eligible day.COVID-19 emergency leave for self-employed parents enrolled in INPS (Italian National Institute for Social Security)Parents who are self-employed and enrolled in INPS are entitled to a specific leave for children not older than 12 years of age, for which an allowance is paid for each eligible day at 50% of the conventional daily salary established annually by law, depending on the type of self-employment.Operating proceduresThe operating procedures for accessing the COVID-19 emergency leave or the bonus for the purchase of baby-sitting services are established by INPS.For parents who are employed in the public sector, the payment of the allowance, as well as an indication of how to take the leave is made by the public administration with which the employment relationship exists.Babysitter BonusRecipients of paid leave may, as an alternative, request a bonus for the purchase of baby-sitting services up to an overall maximum limit of Euro 600.00 [3], to be used for services provided during the period of suspension of childcare services and educational activities in schools of all levels and degrees.This bonus is also granted to self-employed workers who are not enrolled in INPS, subject to notification by the respective social security funds of the number of beneficiaries.

2. Extension of the duration of paid leave pursuant to article 33, law no. 104 of 5 February 1992 (Article 24 of the Decree)

3. Urgent measures to safeguard the period of active surveillance of private sector workers (Article 26 of the Decree)

4. Indemnity granted to professionals, workers with a coordinated and continuous collaboration relationship, self-employed workers enrolled in the special fund of the mandatory general insurance (“AGO”), seasonal employees in the tourism sector and spas and workers in the agricultural sector, workers enrolled in the workers' pension fund in the entertainment industry and self-employed persons and professionals who are members of private pension funds (Articles 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 38 and 44 of the Decree)

• workers who received, in tax year 2018, a total income not exceeding Euro 35,000 and whose activity was limited by the restrictive measures issued as a result of the epidemiological emergency by COVID-19;
• workers who received, in tax year 2018, a total income between Euro 35,000 and Euro 50,000 and who have ceased or reduced or suspended their self-employed or freelance activities as a result of the epidemiological emergency by COVID-19 by at least 33% in the first quarter of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019 [5].

applewebdata://CF2C1D40-3D94-46B9-BEC2-1B2F4635D684#_ftnref1

5. Extension of time-limits for NASpI and DIS-COLL unemployment applications (Article 33 of the Decree)

6. Extension of the forfeiture time-limits for social security and welfare (Article 34 of the Decree)

7. Smart work provisions (Article 39 of the Decree)

8. Contributions to enterprises for security and health care strengthening (Article 43 of the Decree)

9. Suspension of the procedures for challenging dismissals (Article 46 of the Decree)

• suspension of collective dismissal procedures commenced after 23 February 2020 (i.e. from 24 February onwards);
• prohibition to initiate new collective dismissal procedures pursuant to Articles 4, 5 and 24 of Law No. 223/91;
• prohibition of dismissal for objective just cause pursuant to Article 3 of Law No. 604/1966, concerning also dismissals not related to the COVID-19 emergency regardless of the number of employees in force (although the provision is silent on the point, in light of the purpose of the same, it is considered reasonable and precautionary to suspend also the procedures commenced pursuant to Article 7 of Law No. 604/1966 and still in progress at present, with the consequent need for employers who find themselves in such a situation to manage redundancies availing themselves, for example, of social shock absorbers).

So, within 60 days of the entry into force of the Decree-Law it will be possible to proceed only with dismissals that do not fall within the scope of the prohibition and, therefore, to dismiss for subjective just cause, just cause, failure to pass the probation period and, in consideration of the regulatory postponement contained in the provision, for exceeding the protected period.

10. Employee premium (Article 63 of the Decree)

11. New urgent measures to counter the COVID-19 epidemiological emergency and contain its effects in civil, criminal, tax and military justice (Article 83 of the Decree)