10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845
The contribution aims at analyzing the issue of economic dependency of self-employed workers in the Italian Legal system and the problem of their contractual imbalance. At this purpose, it focuses on Art. 3, L. no. 81/2018 on unfair clauses and practices, which settles different measures in favor of self-employed workers.
application/pdf
1561-8048
13845
2
en
Caterina Mazzanti
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Italian Labour Law e-Journal
Labor Law
Economic Dependency and Contractual Imbalance of Self-Employed Workers in the Italian Legal Framework
Text.Serial.Journal
https://illej.unibo.it/
14
Theme
2021-12-22
2021-11-15
2021-12-22
2021-12-22
17-27
ILLeJ
Caterina Mazzanti
2021/12/22
10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845
17
PhD, Post-Doc University of Udine
1561-8048
2
Labor Law
en
27
Economic Dependency and Contractual Imbalance of Self-Employed Workers in the Italian Legal Framework
https://illej.unibo.it/article/download/13845/13683
14
Economic Dependency and Contractual Imbalance of                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
Self-Employed Workers in the Italian Legal Framework                                    Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
Caterina Mazzanti                                                                             ISSN 1561-8048
caterina.mazzanti@uniud.it                                     https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845




  Economic Dependency and Contractual Imbalance of
      Self-Employed Workers in the Italian Legal
                    Framework
                                         Caterina Mazzanti

 1. Preliminary remarks on the protection of self-employed workers in light of the Act n.
 81/2017. 2. Unfair clauses and practices against the self-employed worker. The discipline of
 art. 3 of the Act n. 81/2017. 3. The definition of Self-employed worker’s economic
 dependency. 4. The unfair advantage of economic dependency. 5. The provision on the
 compensation for damages. Rethinking about the function of civil liability from the
 perspective of labour law. 6. Conclusion. The blurred frontier between labour law and private
 law.

                                                  Abstract

     The contribution aims at analyzing the issue of economic dependency of self-employed workers
     in the Italian Legal system and the problem of their contractual imbalance. At this purpose, it
     focuses on Art. 3, Act no. 81/2018 on unfair clauses and practices, which settles different
     measures in favor of self-employed workers.

     Keyword: Self-employed work; Economic dependency; Unfair clauses and practices; Damages;
     Functions of Civil liability; Labor Law



 1. Preliminary remarks on the protection of Self-employed workers in light of the Act
 n. 81/2017.

    According to our legal system, self-employed worker has been traditionally considered
 the prototype of the strongest contractual party. Unlike the case of the employee, who has
 been always considered in a condition of weakness and subjection to the employer, and
 therefore protected by a specific regulation, a particular protection for self-employed workers
 missed for a long time. However, such situation has radically changed over time. Today, there
 is a wide category of self-employed workers carrying out activities without peculiar



 
  Caterina Mazzanti, PhD, Post Doc, University of Udine. This article has been submitted to a double-blind
 peer review process. The paper is the result of the researches within the project “WORKING POOR
 N.E.E.D.S.: NEwEquity, Decent work and Skills”, CUP G24I19002630001, funded by the 2017 PRIN
 program (University of Udine).
    Caterina Mazzanti                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                            Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                   Section: Theme




characteristics, so that they are easily replaceable with each other. Consequently, they relapse
into a situation of economic dependence with respect to clients.
   Therefore, the Italian Legislator has introduced the first regulation in favour of self-
employed workers within the Act n. 81/2017, commonly known as ‘Self-employed Work
Statute’, which settles a first regulatory core for such category. The overmentioned Act aimed
at introducing wider guarantees for self-employed workers, including those professionals
who are mandatory required to be registered in professional associations, para-subordinated
workers and occasional collaborators (while entrepreneurs, even if small, are expressly
excluded).
   The Act no. 81/2017 has introduced a large variety of measures in favour the self-
employed workers. It provides a normative system aimed at strengthening the economic and
social protection for self- employed workers, who carry out their activities in a non-
entrepreneurial form. To summarize some of the most significant aspects enshrined in the
overmentioned Act, it also includes the protection for maternity and unemployment
condition. At this regard, the maternity leave consists in the right for self-employed women
to receive the maternity allowance for the two months prior to the date of delivery and for
the following three months, regardless of the abstention from work. In case the client agrees,
they might even be replaced by other trusted self-employed workers. In addition, parental
leave within the first three years of the child’s life increases from three to six months.
   As highlighted before, the overmentioned Act provides also a specific regulation for the
unemployment condition. It consists, in fact, in a specific benefit (the so-called ‘DIS-COLL’),
so far transitory, for ‘coordinated and continuous collaborators’ (the so-called ‘co.co.co’)
who have involuntarily lost their job.
   In additions, the Act n. 81/2017 tackles both issues of economic dependency and
imbalanced contractual relationship between client and self-employed worker (art. 3). The
present paper will especially focus on such provision.


2. Unfair clauses and practices against the self-employed worker. The discipline of
art. 3 of the Act n. 81/2017.

   According to Art. 3, Act n. 81/2017,1 are to be considered unfair and consequently
ineffective the following clauses: those that determine payment terms exceeding sixty days,
as well as those that allow one-sided changes to the contract in favour of the client or to



1 According to Art. 3, Act n. 81/2017, «1. The clauses that give the client the right to unilaterally modify the
conditions of the contract or, in the case of a contract having as its object a continuous activity, to withdraw
from it without adequate notice as well as the clauses by which the parties agree the payment in more than sixty
days from the date of receipt of the payment request are unfair and ineffective.
2. The client’s refusal to sign a written contract is unfair.
3. In the cases described by paragraphs 1 and 2, the self-employed worker has right to compensation for
damages, also by promoting an attempt to conciliation through authorized bodies.
4. To the contractual relationships governed by this chapter is applied, inasmuch as compatible, Art. 9, Act. no.
192/1998 on abuse of economic dependency».

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                     18
    Caterina Mazzanti                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                            Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                   Section: Theme




withdraw from a long-term contract without adequate notice. Even the refusal of the client
to sign a written contract is considered unfair.
    In all the overmentioned cases, the self-employed worker has the right to claim for
damages.
    To deeply analyse the provision of Art. 3, Act n. 81/2017 and to understand the impact
of such norm on our legal framework, it might be possible to classify the described instances
into two main groups.
    The first one (Art. 3, par. 1), consisting in a set of unfair clauses provoking disparity
between self-employed worker’s rights and obligations and rights and obligations of the
client. At this regard, the norm appears to have been designed on the model of Art. 9, Act
no. 192/1998 on the abuse of economic dependency in subcontracting agreements.2
Therefore, after providing a definition of abuse of economic dependency, the article
highlights a number of cases referring to such pathologic situation.
    At this regard, Art. 3, Act no. 81/2017 is also similar to Art. 33, legislative Decree no.
206/2005 (so-called ‘Costumer Code’), but with significant differences, as it will be
highlighted hereinafter (see paragraph 4).
    The second instance – referring to the unfair behaviour of the client within the contractual
relationship with the self-employed worker – is the client’s refusal to sign a written contract.
Such refuse might hide, in fact, the intention to take an unjust advantage from the economic
dependency of the self-employed worker.
    Thus, the over-mentioned cases indicate the situation of abuse of economic dependency.
In this circumstance, the legislator has recognised a specific protection for the self-employed
worker, by providing him the right for compensation. It is, in fact, a remedy deriving from
both the provision of unfair contractual clauses and the refusal to sign a contract.
    A letteral interpretation of this norm might suggest that such right automatically derives
from the presence of such conditions and therefore, independently to the existence of a real
damage. Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that in case the contract will be regularly
performed, the sole refusal to sign the contract do not provoke any damage. Therefore, the
provision rises a wider issue, concerning the alleged existence of a punitive and deterrent
objective behind the imposition of civil liability in this specific case and, by a deeper analysis,
in the Italian employment law system. The ratio of the provision seems to be, in fact, to
punish the wrongdoer instead of to repair a real damage (see paragraph 5).




2 According to art. 9, Act no. 192/1998, «The abuse by one or more companies of the state of economic
dependence in which a customer or supplier company is in itself or in their regards is prohibited. Economic
dependence is considered to be the situation in which an enterprise is able to determine, in commercial relations
with another enterprise, an excessive imbalance of rights and obligations. Economic dependence is assessed
also taking into account the real possibility for the party who has suffered the abuse of finding satisfactory
alternatives on the market. 2. The abuse can also consist in the refusal to sell or in the refusal to buy, in the
imposition of unjustifiably burdensome or discriminatory contractual conditions, in the arbitrary interruption
of the commercial relations in progress. 3. The pact through which the abuse of economic dependence takes
place is null and void. The competent ordinary judge is aware of the actions in the matter of abuse of economic
dependence, including injunctions and compensation for damages».

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                     19
    Caterina Mazzanti                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                                Section: Theme




3. The definition of Self-employed worker’s economic dependency.

    The research aims at pointing out the self-employed condition of weakness within the
Italian Labour Market as a consequence of his economic dependency, especially in case of a
single-client relationship.
    On a practical level, the economic dependency has two different faces. The first one
shows itself through the weakness of one subject compared to another, due to their different
positions within the market. This condition, in itself neutral and physiological, could still
have a pathologic development as it delves into the misuse, by the subject with a stronger
bargaining power,3 of his economic supremacy in order to obtain an unjust advantage
through a distorted exercise of private autonomy. In fact, the weaker contractual partner is
prompted to accept those conditions unilaterally imposed by the other one, otherwise he will
be excluded from the market.
    A general definition of the notion of economic dependency within the Italian legal
framework appears to be of fundamental importance. Nevertheless, the legislator has not
provided it. In fact, a description of the phenomenon has been introduced for the first time
only with regard to the regulation on “Subcontracting Agreement” (Art. 9, Act no.
192/1998). Thus, there is neither a general definition, nor a specific provision with respect
to the case of the self-employed worker. Hence, Art. 3, Act no. 81/2017 has established that
economic dependency is definable by adapting the definition enshrined in Art. 9, Act no.
192/1998.4 In particular, it is the situation in which a subject is able to determine an excessive
imbalance of rights and obligations.
    As highlighted before, economic dependency might be a neutral condition, but it might
have a pathologic effect when it provokes an imbalance within the contractual relationship
and it causes the impossibility, for the self-employed worker, to find a proper alternative
within the market.
    The fact that Art. 3, Act no. 81/2017, explicitly referrers to the notion of economic
dependency described by the overmentioned Act on Subcontracting Agreement5 shows that
the case of the abuse of economic dependence still represents an unsolved problem, to the
point that the legislator has felt the need to regulate the phenomenon again, this time by

3 Maugeri M., Abuso di dipendenza economica ed autonomia privata, Giuffrè, Milano, 2003, 132 ff.; Pinto V., L’abuso
di dipendenza economica «fuori dal contratto» tra diritto civile e diritto antitrust, in Rivista di Diritto Civile, 2000, 389 ff.;
Roppo V., Parte generale del contratto, contratti del consumatore e contratti asimmetrici (con postilla sul “terzo contratto”), in
Rivista di diritto privato, 2007, 683 ff.; Musso A., la subfornitura, in De Nova G. (a cura di), Commentario Scialoja
Branca Galgano, Zanichelli, Bologna, 2003, 843.
4 Perulli A., Il Jobs Act degli autonomi: nuove (e vecchie) tutele per il lavoro autonomo non imprenditoriale, in Working Papers

C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT – 235/2015, 173; Perulli A., Il Jobs Act degli autonomi: nuove (e vecchie) tutele per
il lavoro autonomo non imprenditoriale, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 1, 2017, 173; Perulli A., Oltre la
subordinazione, Giappichelli, Torino, 2021, 85 ff.; Zoppini A., Il contratto asimmetrico tra parte generale, contratti
d’impresa e disciplina della concorrenza, in Rivista di Diritto Civile, 2008, 515; Galgano F., Libertà contrattuale e giustizia
del contratto, in Scalisi V., Il ruolo della civilistica italiana nel processo di costruzione della nuova Europa, Giuffrè, Milano,
2009, 547 ff..
5 Caso R., Pardolesi P., La nuova disciplina del contratto di subfornitura industriale: scampolo di fine millennio o prodromo di

tempi migliori?, in Rivista di diritto privato, 1998, 4, 725; Di Lorenzo G., Abuso di dipendenza economica e contratto nullo,
Cedam, Padova, 2009, 30; Fabbio Ph., L’abuso di dipendenza economica, Milano, Giuffrè, 2006, 100; Oppo, G.,
Antitrust e professioni intellettuali, in Rivista di Diritto Civile, 1999, 2, 123 ff.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                                   20
    Caterina Mazzanti                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                     Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                            Section: Theme




preparing specific remedies for self-employed workers. The regulatory intervention
originates from a context of radical changes, which affect especially the social type of the
self-employed.
     As highlighted, there is a wide group of low-skilled self-employed workers, easily
replaceable with each other and, consequently, in a condition of economic dependence with
respect to clients. Therefore, they are forced to accept those conditions unilaterally imposed
by the counterparty, who unfairly takes advantage of their weakness.
     As pointed out, the norm enshrined in Art. 3, Act n. 81/2017 represents the first
intervention against negative consequences of self-employed workers’ economic dependency
and is based on two international legal models.6
     The first one is the so-called “Gross Disparity” discipline described in Art. 3.2.7., Unidroit
Principles, according to which “(1) A party may avoid the contract or an individual term of
it if, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the contract or term unjustifiably gave the
other party an excessive advantage. Regard is to be had, among other factors, to (a) the fact
that the other party has taken unfair advantage of the first party’s dependency, economic
distress or urgent needs, or of its improvidence, ignorance, inexperience or lack of bargaining
skill; and (b) the nature and purpose of the contract.”.
     The second one, is Art. 4:109, Principle of European Contract Law, according to that «a
party may avoid a contract if, at the time of the conclusion of the contract: a) it was dependent
on or had a relationship of trust with the other party, was in economic distress or had urgent
needs, was improvident, ignorant, inexperienced or lacking in bargaining skill, and b) the
other party knew or ought to have known of this and, given the circumstances and purpose
of the first party’s situation in a way which was grossly unfair or took an excessive benefit».


4. The unfair advantage of economic dependency.

    Once defined the economic dependency, the purpose of the paper is to analyse the most
problematic instances deriving from the misuse of such situation. In fact, in all those cases,
the weakness of self-employed workers would force them to bear the imposition of
unfavourable contractual conditions, otherwise they would be exposed to the risk of being
excluded from the labour market.
    At this regard, Art. 3, Act n. 81/2017 identifies two main categories. The first is referred
to the “black list” of unfair terms, which attributes the client the right to unilaterally change
terms and conditions of the contract, to withdraw from the contract without adequate notice
or to determine payment terms exceeding sixty days. In those cases, it is automatically
assumed that the strong contractual party is abusing its dominant position. In other words,
the Legislator has established that there is no possibility for the client to unilaterally modify
the contract, otherwise those clauses are (according to the letteral wording of the norm)
‘ineffective’.


6 Perulli A., Un Jobs Act per il lavoro autonomo: verso una nuova disciplina della dipendenza economica?, in Rivista Italiana
di Diritto del Lavoro, 2015, 1, 119 ff.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                              21
    Caterina Mazzanti                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                        Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                               Section: Theme




    The norm is clearly based on the model of the Consumer Regulation7 (Art. 33, Legislative
Decree n. 206/2005, “Consumer Code”) with a significant difference. While the Self-
employed Statute establishes that unfair terms are ineffective, the Consumer Code states the
nullity of such clauses, according to the so-called “Invalidity for protection”.8 Whether those two
expressions, ‘nullity’ and ‘ineffectiveness’ should be, in this specific case, considered as two
synonyms is not certain. However, since in both cases the contractual relationship has an
asymmetrical nature, it can be assumed that the expression ‘ineffective’ refers to the nullity
with a protective function. In fact, the ratio pursued by Art. 3 is to offer to the self-employed
worker, the weak part of the relationship, tools that might adjust an imbalanced relationship.
Differently, it would be unreasonable to adopt different sanctioning systems with regard to
similar situations.
    By the way, the common aspect of both disciplines is to tackle the asymmetry within the
relationship between the parties by only intervening on the invalid clause and leaving the
contract effective for the rest.
    Focusing the attention on the second circumstance of the misuse of the economic
supremacy by the client, it occurs when the client refuses to sign a written contract. Through
this rule, the Legislator requires the written form in order to protect the weaker partner of
the contractual relationship,9 since the sign of a contract prevents from the risk of any change
of terms and condition. In particular, such refusal assumes a precise meaning in the eyes of
the Legislator, since it indicates the intention to mask the will to harm the interests of the
self-employed worker.
    The legislative provision of formal requirement constitutes, however, an exception to the
general principle of freedom of forms,10 under which the parties choose which negotiating
form has to be adopted. Such exception could be explained taking into consideration the fact
that within the European Union law system, the form is often used as a protecting measure
for the weaker party, especially in the case of asymmetric contracts, characterized by the
opposition of a strong party to a weaker one. In this situation, the infringement of the formal
requirement provokes the nullity of the contract.
    So, the form, in its protective garb (hence the expressions ‘form of protection’)11
constitutes an element of validity of the contract and at the same time it guarantees an
adequate information regarding the content of the contract, in response to the need for


7 Art. 33. Unfair terms. 1. In the contract concluded between the consumer and the professional, clauses that,
in spite of good faith, determine a significant imbalance of the rights and obligations deriving from the contract
are considered unfair to the consumer. 2. Clauses that have as their object, or effect, of: (…) h) allow the
professional to withdraw from contracts without reasonable notice, except in the case of just cause; m) allow
the professional to unilaterally modify the clauses of the contract, or the characteristics of the product or service
to be supplied, without a justified reason indicated in the contract itself (…).
8 Art. 36. 1. The clauses described by Articles 33 and 34 are null while the contract remains valid for the rest.

(…).
9 Betti E., Teoria generale del negozio giuridico, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli, 2002, 125 ff.; Di Giovanni F.,

La Forma, in Gabrielli E. (eds.), I contratti in generale, Utet, Torino, 2006, 887 ff.; Scalisi V., Contratto e regolamento
nel piano d’azione delle nullità di protezione, in Rivista di Diritto Civile, 2005, 1, 459 ff.; Bianca C.M., Diritto civile, III,
Giuffrè, Milano, 2003, 273 ff.
10 Giorgianni M., Forma degli atti, in Enciclopedia del diritto, Giuffrè, Milano, 1968, 988 ff.
11 Irti N., Studi sul formalismo negoziale, Cedam, Padova, 1997, 80 ff.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                                  22
     Caterina Mazzanti                                                                                  Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                               Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                                      Section: Theme




transparency. Thus, the written form of the contract removes the danger of alterations and
oral modifications.
   Nevertheless, it seems that the formal requirement enshrined in Art. 3 does not exactly
refers to the overmentioned case of the ‘protective form’. In fact, the infringement of such
provision does not determine the invalidity of the contract, but only the right to
compensation for damages.
   In addition, the norm does not require any specific minimum content of the contract,
otherwise, the contractual freedom would be compromised.


5. The provision on the compensation for damages. Rethinking about the function
of civil liability from the perspective of labour law.

    As highlighted, Art. 3, Act no. 81/2017 provides a right for compensation in both cases
of unfair terms and refusal to conclude an agreement in written form. With specific regard
to the second circumstance, the compensation arises automatically from the refuse of a
written contract and independently from the existence of a real loss or damage. In other
terms, civil liability seems to be exceptionally used in order to prevent damages and to punish
the wrongdoer and not to compensate the injured party, as it traditionally occurs within the
Italian legal framework.
    The provision suggests a wider analysis on the functions of civil liability into the Italian
legal system. At this regard, the issue is to understand whether it is possible to laid down the
basis for a multi-functional civil liability discipline in our legal framework.
    Nowadays, consensus is still missing amongst academics and practitioners on a common
approach to tackle such issue; on the contrary, it is possible to identify two main positions
which have been adopted by the Corte di Cassazione and by the most important authors in
their contributions.
    According to the traditional position, civil liability does not have a punitive scope under
Italian law, as its role should be confined to the need of compensating the injured party.12 In
this regard, the Italian Corte di Cassazione pointed out that the matter (objective) of
punishment and of sanction is alien to the system.
    From this traditional point of view, the punitive purpose in civil liability would entail a
violation of the general principles of the ‘Ordre Publique’ and of the ‘wrongful enrichment’,
which inform the Italian legal system.
    On the contrary, the most recent developments as emerging in legal literature, highlight a
multifaceted civil liability figure which is characterized not only by a reparatory function, but
also by punitive and preventing features.13

12  Among the authors, see in particular Rodotà S., Il problema della responsabilità civile, Giuffrè, Milano, 1967;
Constitutional Court, 27th October 1994, no. 372, in Foro italiano, I, 3297.
13 Ponzanelli G., La irrilevanza costituzionale del principio di integrale riparazione del danno, in Bussani M., La

responsabilità civile nella giurisprudenza costituzionale, Napoli, 2006, 67; Perlingeri P., La responsabilità civile tra indennizzo
e risarcimento, in Rassegna di diritto civile, 2004, 1061 ff.; Di Majo A., La responsabilità civile nella prospettiva dei rimedi:
la funzione deterrente, in Sirena P., La funzione deterrente della responsabilità civile alla luce delle riforme straniere e dei Principles
of European Tort Law, Giuffré, Milano, 2011, 21.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                                            23
     Caterina Mazzanti                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                                Section: Theme




    A further corroboration of the multifaceted identity of civil liability comes from the
European Group on Tort Law (also known as The Tilburg Group) which has developed the
topic of civil liability based on the contribution of several European and international
academics. In particular, in its ‘Principles of European Tort Law’ The Tilburg Group
highlighted that ‘damages also serve the aim of preventing arm’ (Art. 10:101).
    Recently, the Joint Division of the Italian Corte di Cassazione ruled, for the very first
time, in favour of the enforceability in Italy of foreign decisions granting the payment of so-
called punitive damages (Cass. civ. 16601/2017).
    There are, in fact, many cases of civil liability with punitive aim in both private law and
labour law fields. In particular, Art. 125, legislative Decree no. 30/2005 (‘Code of Industrial
Property’) empowers the judge to impose the payment of a pecuniary amount in relation to
the violation and the delay in the execution of the judicial orders.14 This case is known also
in the Common Law system (so-called ‘disgorgement damages’15). Moreover, the law
concerning the publishing of newspaper and books (Art. 12, Act no. 47/1948). In case of
libel a specific amount, calculated with regard to the distribution of the press, has to be paid.16
    With specific regard to the Labour law field, Art. 18, par. 2, Act no. 300/70, (Statuto dei
Lavoratori) provides that, in case of an employee’s wrongful dismissal, the pecuniary sanction
shall never be lower than the remuneration of five months: in this case, the payment of the
pecuniary sanction does not depend on a real damage, whose amount could hypothetically
be lower than five months. Also Art. 28, par. 2, legislative Decree no. 81/2015, disposes that
in case of an improper use of fixed-term employment contract, such working arrangement
will be converted into an open-ended one. In addition, a compensation (whose amount has
to be determined between 2,5 and 12 monthly retribution) has to be paid.17 Furthermore, a
similar provision has been recently introduced by the legislator as a solution against the
damage to the image of the Public Administration caused by the employee.18




14 Pardolesi R., Risarcimento del danno, retroversione degli utili e deterrence: il modello nord-americano e quello europeo, in
Diritto industriale, 2012, 2, 133; Pardolesi R, La retroversione degli utili nel nuovo codice dei diritti di proprietà industriale,
in Il diritto industriale, 2005, 1, 38 ff.; Pardolesi R., Un’innovazione in cerca di identità, in Danno e responsabilità, 2006,
1605 ff.; Galli C., Risarcimento del danno e retroversione degli utili: le diverse voci di danno, in Diritto industriale, 2012, 2,
109 ff.
15 Smith L.D., Disgorgement of the profit of breach of contract: Property, contract and efficient breach, in Canadian Business

Law Journal, 24, 2005, 121 ; Mc Camus J.D., Disgorgement for Breach of Contract: A comparative Perspective, , Loyola of
Los Angeles Law Review, 1st January 2003, accessible at the following link:
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2362&context=llr
16 Zeno Zencovich V., Il risarcimento esemplare per diffamazione nel diritto americano e la riparazione pecuniaria ex art. 12

della legge sulla stampa, in Responsabilità civile e previdenza, 1983, 40 ff.
17 According to Art. 28, par. 2, «In cases of transformation of the fixed-term contract into an open-ended

contract, the judge condemns the employer to pay compensation for the damage in favor of the worker by
establishing an all-inclusive compensation in the amount between a minimum of 2.5 and a maximum of 12
monthly payments of the last salary, taking into account the criteria indicated in article 8 of Law no. 604 of
1966. […]».
18 According to Art. 55-quarter, paragraph 3-quarter of legislative Decree no. 165/2001 on Public Employment,

«The amount of the compensable damage is remitted to the judge's equitable assessment also in relation to the
relevance of the fact. In any case the amount cannot be less than six months of the last salary, plus interest and
costs of justice».

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                                    24
 Caterina Mazzanti                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                          Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                 Section: Theme




   The issue is whether the provision of Art. 3, Act no. 81/2017 might be considered as an
exceptional case of civil liability with a deterrent and punitive scope. The right to a
compensation derives automatically by the existence of those situations described in Art. 3.
   If so, the problem could be addressed to the methods of calculating such damage, since
the norm does not identify any parameter. Differently from the overmentioned cases, the
norm does not provide a specific amount of compensation. On a practical level,
Jurisprudential decisions on this aspect still miss. Thus, such profile will be problematic and
will probably have a negative impact on the applicability of such rule.


6. Conclusion. The blurred frontier between labor law and private law.

   In conclusion, in order to tackle the contractual asymmetry, the analysed discipline seems
to show the tendency to import private law tools in labour law.
   The economic dependency of self-employed workers has been, in fact, regulated similarly
to other cases, belonging to the private law field, as the Subcontracting Agreement and the
Consumer regulation, even if with significant differences.
   Thus, it is necessary to understand where the protective intervention is directed: in a logic
of protection of the weak contractor or in a perspective of guarantee of the subject as a
worker.
   It is therefore necessary to rethink the relationship between private and labour law, in
order to establish a relationship of cooperation between the two subjects.
   In this perspective, the overmentioned article is an excellent opportunity to verify the
possibility to adopt an ‘hybrid solution’, based on a shared discipline.
   In this sense, as pointed out by some authors, there is a general trend to rediscovery
traditional private law rules in order to implement the protection of the weaker party and
make it more effective.
   In a phase of “identity crisis” of the traditional forms of protecting measures, the use of
private law tools could paradoxically lead to the main goal of labour law: the protection of
disadvantaged subjects.




                                                Bibliography

Ales E., Contratti a termine e pubbliche amministrazioni: quousque tandem, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto
del Lavoro, 1, 2014, 86 ff.;
Aloisi A., Il lavoro “a chiamata” e le piattaforme online della collaborative economy: nozioni e tipi legali in
cerca di tutele, in Labour & Law Issues, 2, 2016, 24 ff.;
Bianca C.M., Diritto civile, III, Giuffrè, Milano, 2003, 273 ff.;
Betti E., Teoria generale del negozio giuridico, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli, 2002, 125 ff.;
Busnelli F.D., Deterrenza, responsabilità civile, fatto illecito, danni punitivi, in Europa e diritto privato,
2009, 909 ff.;

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                   25
 Caterina Mazzanti                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                          Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                 Section: Theme




Caso R., Pardolesi R., La nuova disciplina del contratto di subfornitura industriale: scampolo di fine
millennio o prodromo di tempi migliori? in Rivista di diritto privato, 4, 1999, 725;
Carinci F., Diritto privato e diritto del lavoro, Torino, 2007, p. 103.;
Dagnino E., Il lavoro che cambia: questioni giuridiche e di relazioni industriali, in DRI, 1, 2016, 146
ff.;
Di Giovanni F., La Forma, in Gabrielli E. (a cura di), I contratti in generale, UTET, Torino 2006,
887 ff.;
Di Lorenzo G., Abuso di dipendenza economica e contratto nullo, Cedam, Padova, 2009, 30 ff;
Di Majo A., La responsabilità civile nella prospettiva dei rimedi: la funzione deterrente, in Sirena P., La
funzione deterrente della responsabilità civile alla luce delle riforme straniere e dei Principles of European
Tort Law, Giuffré, Milano, 2011, 21;
Fabbio P., L’abuso di dipendenza economica, Giuffrè, Milano, 2006, 100;
Franzoni M., Il danno risarcibile, in Trattato della responsabilità civile, diretto da Franzoni M., vol.
II, Milano, Giuffrè, 2010, 699 ff.;
Galgano F., Libertà contrattuale e giustizia del contratto, in V. Scalisi, Il ruolo della civilistica italiana
nel processo di costruzione della nuova Europa, Giuffrè, Milano, 2007, 547 ff.;
Galli C., Risarcimento del danno e retroversione degli utili: le diverse voci di danno, in Diritto industriale,
2012, 2, 109 ff.;
Gazzoni F., Manuale di diritto privato, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli, 2013;
Genovese A., Le condizioni generali di contratto, Cedam, Padova, 1954, 230;
Giorgianni M., Forma degli atti, in Enciclopedia del diritto, Giuffrè, Milano, 1968, 988 ff.;
Granelli C., In tema di “danni punitivi”, in Responsabilità civile e previdenza, 2014, 1760 ff.;
Ichino P., Il contratto di lavoro, in A. Cicu, F. Messineo, Trattato di Diritto Civile e commerciale,
Giuffrè, Milano, 2000, 16;
Irti N., Studi sul formalismo negoziale, Cedam, Padova, 1997, 80 ff;
Mattioni M., La tutela del lavoro autonomo nelle transazioni commerciali (Art. 2) e le clausole e le condotte
abusive (Art. 3, commi 1-3), in G. Zilio Grandi - M. Biasi, Commentario breve allo statuto del lavoro
autonomo e del lavoro agile, Cedam, Padova, 2018, 280 ff.;
Maugeri M., Abuso di dipendenza economica ed autonomia privata, Giuffè, Milano, 2003, 132 ff.;
Mauro A., La riforma del lavoro autonomo: una lente per leggere il lavoro che cambia, ADAPT, 2017;
Mazzotta O., Diritto del lavoro e diritto civile: i temi di un dialogo, Giappichelli, Torino 1994;
Mc Camus J.D., Disgorgement for Breach of Contract: A comparative Perspective, 1-1-2003, in
https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2362&context=llr
Musso A., La subfornitura, in De Nova G., Commentario Scialoja Branca Galgano, Zanichelli,
Bologna, 2003, 843;
Nuzzo M., Utilità sociale e autonomia privata, Giuffrè, Milano, 1975, 92;
Nuzzo M., Sub art. 1469-ter, in C. M. Bianca e F. D. Busnelli, Commentario al capo XIV bis del
codice civile: dei contratti del consumatore, Cedam, Padova, 1999, 719 ff.;
Nuzzo V., Il lavoro personale coordinato e continuativo tra riforme e prospettive di tutela, Working Papers
CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.It, n. 280/2015, 2015, 20;
Oppo G., Antitrust e professioni intellettuali, in Rivista di diritto commerciale, 2, 1999, 123 ff.;
Pardolesi R., Risarcimento del danno, retroversione degli utili e deterrence: il modello nord-americano e
quello europeo, in Diritto industriale, 2012, 2, 133;

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                   26
 Caterina Mazzanti                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                          Issue 2, Vol. 14 (2021)
                                                                                                 Section: Theme




Pardolesi R., La retroversione degli utili nel nuovo codice dei diritti di proprietà industriale, in Il diritto
industriale, 2005, 1, 38 ff.;
Pardolesi R., Un’innovazione in cerca di identità, in Danno e responsabilità, 2006, 1605 ff.;
Perlingeri P., La responsabilità civile tra indennizzo e risarcimento, in Rassegna di diritto civile, 2004,
1061 ff.;
Perulli A., Un Jobs Act per il lavoro autonomo: verso una nuova disciplina della dipendenza economica?,
Working Papers C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT – 235/2015, 2015, 109 ff.;
Perulli A., Le tutele del lavoro autonomo nel DDL collegato alla legge di stabilità: una prima riflessione,
in nelmerito.com, 2015;
Perulli A., Il Jobs Act degli autonomi: nuove (e vecchie) tutele per il lavoro autonomo non imprenditoriale,
in Rivista Italiana di diritto del lavoro, 1, 2017, 173;
Perulli A., Oltre la subordinazione, Giappichelli, Torino, 2021;
Pinto V., L’abuso di dipendenza economica «fuori dal contratto» tra diritto civile e diritto antitrust, in
Rivista di diritto commerciale, 2000, 389 ff.;
Ponzanelli G., La irrilevanza costituzionale del principio di integrale riparazione del danno, in Bussani
M. (ed.), La responsabilità civile nella giurisprudenza costituzionale, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane,
Napoli, 2006, 67;
Plaia A., Invalidità satisfattiva dell’atto di autonomia privata, in Europa e diritto privato, 2013, 1035
ff.;
Rodotà S., Il problema della responsabilità civile, Giuffrè, Milano, 1967;
Roppo V., La definizione di clausola “vessatoria” nei contratti dei consumatori, in I contratti, 1, 2000,
83 ff.;
Roppo V., Parte generale del contratto, contratti del consumatore e contratti asimmetrici (con postilla sul
“terzo contratto”), in Rivista di diritto privato, 4, 2007, 683 ff.;
Salvi C., La responsabilità civile, in Iudica G. e Zatti P., Trattato di diritto privato, Giuffrè, Milano,
2005, 30;
Scalisi V., Nullità e inefficacia nel sistema europeo dei contratti, in Europa e diritto privato, 3, 2001, 489
ff.;
Scalisi V., Contratto e regolamento nel piano d’azione delle nullità di protezione, in Rivista di diritto
commerciale, 1, 2005, 459 ff.;
Smith, L.D., Disgorgement of the profit of breach of contract: Property, contract and efficient breach, 24
Canadian Business Law Journal, 1995, 121;
Zeno Zencovich V., Il risarcimento esemplare per diffamazione nel diritto americano e la riparazione
pecuniaria ex art. 12 della legge sulla stampa, in Responsabilità civile, 1983, 40 ff.;
Zoppini A., Il contratto asimmetrico tra parte generale, contratti d’impresa e disciplina della concorrenza,
in Rivista di diritto commerciale, 5, 2008, 515 ff.;
Zoppoli I., Abuso di dipendenza economica e lavoro autonomo: un microsistema di tutele in difficile
equilibrio, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 1, 2019, 97 ff..


Copyright © 2021 Caterina Mazzanti. This article is released under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/13845                                                                   27
