10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224
In the frame of the draft directive enforcement measures, the essay investigates the advisability of adopting the certification procedure for employment contracts in order to ensure the correct use of genuine self-employment in the digital platform economy. This is a hypothesis evaluated (and discarded) by the European Commission during the consultations for the adoption of the proposal for a directive on platform work.Starting from the implementation criticalities related to the legal presumption and the indices of subordination (Chapter II, proposal for a directive) in national legal systems, the centrality of enforcement mechanisms for verifying the correct contractual qualification is highlighted. However, in addition to the “ex post” enforcement tools, it may be necessary to build “ex ante” verification systems, with a deflationary nature, to be activated at the time of signing the employment contract, especially in the area of self-employment. These considerations are advanced by taking as an example the Italian model of the “Certification Commissions”, in which the European Commission had shown interest.
application/pdf
1561-8048
15224
1
en
Maria Giovannone
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Italian Labour Law e-Journal
certification of labour contracts
Proposal for a directive on platform workers: enforcement mechanisms and the potential of the (Italian) certification procedure for self-employment
Text.Serial.Journal
https://illej.unibo.it/
15
Theme
2022-07-21
2022-07-17
2022-07-21
2022-07-22
65-83
ILLeJ
Maria Giovannone
2022/07/21
10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224
65
Roma Tre University
1561-8048
1
certification of labour contracts
en
83
Proposal for a directive on platform workers: enforcement mechanisms and the potential of the (Italian) certification procedure for self-employment
https://illej.unibo.it/article/download/15224/14464
15
Proposal for a directive on platform workers: enforcement                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
mechanism and the potential of the (Italian) certification procedure                            Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
for self-employment                                                                                   ISSN 1561-8048
Maria Giovannone                                                       https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224
maria.giovannone@uniroma3.it




          Proposal for a directive on platform workers:
        enforcement mechanisms and the potential of the
      (Italian) certification procedure for self-employment
                                              Maria Giovannone*

  1. Introduction. 2. The importance of enforcement mechanisms. 2.1. Transparency and
  enforcement. 2.2. The certification of self-employment contracts: the discarded option to be
  “rescued”. 3. The Italian model in a complex regulatory framework. 4. Hetero-organized
  work at the test of certification. 5. The (multifaceted) potential of certification procedures in
  platform work. 6. Conclusion.

                                                           Abstract

      In the frame of the draft directive enforcement measures, the essay investigates the advisability
      of adopting the certification procedure for employment contracts in order to ensure the correct
      use of genuine self-employment in the digital platform economy. This is a hypothesis evaluated
      (and discarded) by the European Commission during the consultations for the adoption of the
      proposal for a directive on platform work.
      Starting from the implementation criticalities related to the legal presumption and the indices of
      subordination (Chapter II, proposal for a directive) in national legal systems, the centrality of
      enforcement mechanisms for verifying the correct contractual qualification is highlighted.
      However, in addition to the “ex post” enforcement tools, it may be necessary to build “ex ante”
      verification systems, with a deflationary nature, to be activated at the time of signing the
      employment contract, especially in the area of self-employment. These considerations are
      advanced by taking as an example the Italian model of the “Certification Commissions”, in which
      the European Commission had shown interest.

      Keyword: EU platform workers; balance between economic freedom and workers’ rights; self-
      employed workers; remedies; enforcement mechanisms; certification of labour contracts.


  1. Introduction.

     The directive proposal for improving working conditions for platform workers1 does not
  deviate from the subordination-autonomy dichotomy. Within this framework, the
  combination of the relative presumption of subordination, the reversal of the burden of

  * Researcher in Labour Law at the Department of Economics, University of “Roma Tre”, Italy. This essay has
  been submitted to a double-blind peer review.
  1 For a general overview on platform work emerging issues Perulli A., Bellomo S., (eds.), Platform work 4.0: new

  challenges for labour law, Wolters Kluwer, 2021.
    Maria Giovannone                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                                Section: Theme




proof and the definition of subordination indices are intended to facilitate the contractual
reclassification of bogus self-employed workers.2
    Despite the stated aims, the proposal for a directive does not seem to fully address the
enforcement issues. Indeed, long before anyone else, Valerio De Stefano and Antonio Aloisi
stated that “(p)latform worker(s) do not necessarily need new regulations, but a more
effective enforcement and an unambiguous framework”.3
    In that regard, even if introducing the relative presumption of subordination does try to
remedy the ambiguity of qualifying platform workers without distorting the
subordination/autonomy dichotomy, the question of “effective enforcement” remains on
the table.
    However, the legal presumption and subordination indexes do not lead to a particular
classification outcome. On the contrary, the complex regulatory and interpretative adaptation
of indicators in national legal systems could lead to contractual reclassification procedures
with unpredictable outcomes, prompting sudden reorganisations by platforms.4
    The breakdown of the notion of subordination employment into predictive indexes,
widely used in case law, increased the risk of a high degree of “manipulation” by the judge.5
Moreover, the “codification” of these indicators, even in the light of EU case law, may not
have a uniform effect, given that the demonstration of the absence of an employment
relationship must, in any case, take place under national legal and case law definitions (Art.
5). On the contrary, as rightly noted, the risk is that, under European Union law, the relative
presumption of subordination may be overcome in twenty-seven different ways.6 This may
be done through the legislative transposition of the directive, but also through the
interpretative efforts of national courts to adapt the domestic indices of subordination to the
“tailor-made” elements listed in the directive.
    In this scenario, the presumption indices would widen the exposure of the platforms to a
somewhat unpredictable reclassification of the employment relationship (not only in the
short term, in a period of “adjustment” in application), contradicting the aim of the proposal
to ensure a level playing field and legal certainty for both contractual parties.7

2 See Hießl C., The legal status of platform workers: regulatory approaches and prospects of a European solution.in this Issue.
Among the first Italian commentators, Barbieri M., Prime osservazioni sulla proposta di direttiva per il miglioramento
delle condizioni di lavoro nel lavoro con piattaforma, in Labour & Law Issues, 7, 2, 2021, C1-C20; Bronzini G., La proposta
di Direttiva sul lavoro nelle piattaforme digitali tra esigenze di tutela immediata e le sfide dell’”umanesimo digitale”, in
LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2022, 2 ff.; Giubboni S., La proposta di direttiva della Commissione europea sul lavoro tramite
piattaforma digitale, in Menabò di Etica ed economia, gennaio 2022; Treu T., La digitalizzazione del lavoro: proposte europee
e piste di ricerca, in Federalismi.it, n. 9, 2022, pp. 190-211; Valente L., Tra subordinazione e autonomia: la direttiva sui
rider, lavoce.info, 15 dicembre 2021; Ratti L., A Long Road Towards the Regulation of Platform Work in the EU
(forthcoming).
3 De Stefano V., Aloisi A., European Legal framework for digital labour platforms, European Commission,

Luxembourg, 2018, 53.
4 As predicted by Bertolini A., Alyanak O., Cant C., López T., Agüera P., Howson K., Graham M., Fraiwork

Response to the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on Platform Work, Fairwork, online, 2021; De Minicis
M., Marocco M., Consistenza, caratteristiche e bisogni dei lavoratori delle piattaforme. Quali strategie regolative alla luce della
proposta di Direttiva?, in LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2022, 1-13.
5 Deakin S., Decoding Employment Status, in King’s Law Journal, 31, 2, 2020, 180-193.
6 Barbieri M., nt. (2).
7 On the contrary, according to part of the doctrine, the relative presumption of subordination and predictive

indexes strengthen the legal certainty between the various actors involved in the labour market because of the

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                    66
  Maria Giovannone                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                      Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                             Section: Theme




   On the other hand, the use of genuine self-employment in the digital platform sector
becomes increasingly less feasible in the face of a legal presumption which, in order to widen
the margins of contractual requalification in favour of subordination, risks drawing an even
more confused discrimen between subordinate and self-employed work. Indeed, the new
indices open up an extensive interpretation of the notion of “employee” in the interpretative
practice of many Member States (e.g., Italy8). Above all, beyond the narrower perimeter of
hetero-direction, these indices consider all the intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics of the
employment relationship that refer to the concept of hetero-organisation.9 Therefore, it
cannot be denied that self-employment spaces, even if qualified under the hybrid categories
introduced by national laws,10 could be at least reduced. It will be difficult for a platform to
overcome (negatively) the presumption of subordination, since two indices are enough to
activate it.11
   However, the legal presumption and the indices of subordination must leave room for
the use of genuine self-employment. This concession is first and foremost essential to protect
the freedom to provide services.12 Moreover, under the new protections on algorithmic
management introduced by the same proposal (Chapter III)13, from which self-employed
workers also (partially) benefit the margins, the use of self-employment seem to be
“justified”.
   In this frame, the legal presumption seems to be a partial solution without implementing
mechanisms to ensure its effectiveness. In this respect, it has rightly been pointed out that
one of the main shortcomings of European law is that while it confines itself to establishing
material rights, it ignores the consequences of their non-implementation.14
   On the other hand, European legislation has always been particularly respectful of the
principle of national procedural autonomy, which leaves states free to set up their own system
for monitoring and implementing European rules. However, the absence of European


reduced uncertainty linked to the contractual qualification. Cfr. Kullmann M., Platformisation’ of Work: An EU
Perspective on Introducing a Legal Presumption, in European Labour Law Journal, 13, 1, 2021, 66-80.
8 Ex multis, Bandelloni G., Corsi e ricorsi dell’eterodirezione, in Labour & Law Issues, 7, 1, 2022, 2 ff.; Santoro Passarelli

G., La subordinazione in trasformazione, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2021, 1125 ff.
9 Giubboni S., nt. (2); Bronzini G., nt. (2), 2 ff.
10 For example, in Germany, the so-called employee-like persons (arbeitnehmerähnliche personen); in Italy,

parasubordinate and hetero-organised labour; in Spain, the TRADE (trabajador autónomo económicamente
dependiente); in the UK, the “worker”. As summarised by Williams C. C., Horodnic I. A., Dependent Self-
Employment. Theory, Practice and Policy, Elgar, 2019, in particolare al Capitolo 7 “Approaches towards addressing
the misclassification of employment”, 142-160.
11 Ponterio C., La direzione della Direttiva, in LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2022, 11.
12 On this point, however, it should be noted that the European Commission, for once, seems to sacrifice

economic freedoms in the complex balance with social protections. The directive proposal runs counter to ECJ
case law, which in the past has deemed the legal presumption of subordination as an obstacle to the effective
exercise of the freedom to provide services in the EU market and a disincentive for the genuinely self-employed
(CJEU – Case C-255/04, Commission of the European Communities v French Republic, [2006] ECLI:EU:C:2006:401).
It is true that, in the presence of a relative Euro-Union presumption, the obstacle to the freedom to provide
services in the Single Market is removed. This, of course, is true in principle because uniformity in the
application of the legal presumption in the Member States is far from certain.
13 Aloisi A., Potocka-Sionek N., De-gigging the labour market? An analysis of the ‘algorithmic management’ provisions in

the EU Platform Work Directive in this Issue.
14 Kullman M., nt. (7).



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                               67
     Maria Giovannone                                                                     Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                 Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                        Section: Theme




harmonisation measures makes this principle a kind of “congenital defect” that hinders
homogeneous implementation between the Member States.
    On this basis, it may be pointed out that the legal presumption’s standardising effect will
largely depend on the enforcement arrangements put in place at the national level. Reference
is, in primis, made to judicial redress, the control of the competent public authorities
(including inspection bodies and social security bodies), and industrial relations instruments.
    In the face of these critical issues, an overview of the of transparency and enforcement
mechanisms is drawn (§§ 2; 2.1.). Emphasis will be placed on the role played by the
certification procedures for self-employment contracts (§2.2.), especially in the light of the
Italian experience (§3). Following the analysis, it’s argued that it would be beneficial – to both
platforms and workers – to define an effective enforcement system both at the stage of
establishing the employment relationship and the ex-post stages (§4). Paragraph 5 concludes.


2. The importance of enforcement mechanisms.

2.1. Transparency and enforcement.

   Among its specific objectives, the directive proposal lists improving the enforcement of
the relevant rules by supporting labour and social protection authorities to obtain more
information on digital work platforms15. Indeed, in this respect, the proposal establishes
precise transparency obligations on platforms for the benefit of public authorities. In
particular, Member States shall require digital platforms to declare work performed to the
competent labour and social protection authorities of the Member State in which the work
is performed and to share relevant data with those authorities (Art. 11). In this regard,
however, the proposal specifies that the obligation rests on the “digital labour platforms
which are employers”. The effect is paradoxical: this measure is functional to control the use
of false self-employment by the competent authorities, but the obligation of transparency is
limited only to platforms which, being employers, use subordinate work and do not require
such controls.
   Secondly, the competent authorities and workers’ representatives can access information
on platform work. This information must be updated every six months (Art. 12). These
measures will help the authorities to ensure that workers’ rights are respected, and social
security contributions collected.16 The provisions undoubtedly respond to a pressing need
since platform workers are often “ghosts” for national monitoring and control systems.17

15 European Commission, COM(2021) 762 final, 3 ff. On the need to create synergies between public labour
institutions, López López J., de le Court A., When the Corporate Veil is Lifted: Synergies of Public Labour Institutions
and Platform Workers, in The King's College law journal, 31, 2, 2020, 324-335.
16 European Commission, COM(2021) 762 final, 4. The Commission estimates that Member States could

benefit from an increase in tax and social security contributions of up to EUR 4 billion per year (13).
17 In this connection, in Italy, Pasquale Tridico, President of the Inps (the national social security body), recently

complained that, following notorious legal cases, there are no longer any workers declared in the Inps archives,
either as employees, collaborators or hetero-organised workers. In fact, companies are declaring these workers
as occasional workers who provide services for earnings of less than €5,000 in order to avoid social security

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                          68
  Maria Giovannone                                                                               Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                               Section: Theme




    Among the remedies and enforcement measures (Chapter V), there are those “ordinary”
such as the right to redress (Art. 13), the protection against adverse treatment or
consequences and dismissal (Artt. 17-18) and the procedural framework on controls and
penalties (Art. 19). With regard to the latter provision, the fact that the Privacy Authority is
entrusted with the task of coordinating supervisory activity and ensuring the application of
the workers’ rights enshrined in the Directive is perplexing. It seems quite clear that it would
be more pertinent to attribute this coordinating role to labour authorities, such as the
Ministry of Labour or the inspection bodies.18
    A series of “tailor-made” provisions for platform work also stand out. Firstly, the
possibility for representatives to initiate judicial and administrative proceedings to enforce
the individual rights of workers (Art. 14). This provision enhances recent trade union
practices of bringing the “qualifying issue” before the courts.19 Taking the Italian case as an
example, very often the need to protect platform workers has led national unions to use
litigation as a tool of conflict against platforms. However, some courts have decided to reject
the legitimacy to take legal action of trade unions representing the self-employed.20 Article
14 attempts to remedy this critical issue by enshrining the right of representatives to take
legal action on behalf of or in support of both employed and self-employed workers.
    Secondly, platforms are required to create communication channels for workers, both
employed and self-employed (Art. 15). On this point, the directive enhances the widespread
trend that sees the trade union exploit the ability of the web to amplify the echo of the claims.
In this area, more than in others, we are witnessing a “technological” evolution of the
industrial relations model that involves the expansion of the practical instruments of
collective action.21 This trend represents the response to the process of dematerialization of
the workplace – and to the difficulties of organizing collectively – strongly evident in
platform work.22


charges. See the presentation of the President of the Inps at the Senate hearing on 30 March 2022.
(https://www.inps.it/docallegatiNP/Mig/Allegati/Audizione_Presidente_Tridico_29-03-2022.pdf). In order
to monitor the phenomenon, Ministerial Decree no. 31 of 23 February 2022 was issued, which defines the
standards and rules for the telematic transmission of the communications due by principals (committenti) in
case of work mediated by digital platforms. In detail, the principal of the self-employed work, including
occasional work, must provide the communication by the 20th day of the month following the establishment
of the employment relationship. This electronic communication obligation was introduced by Law Decree no.
152 of 6 November 2021, converted with amendments into Law no. 233 of 29 December 2021 (Article 27,
paragraph 2 decies).
18 On the same position, CNEL, Audizione informale del CNEL nell’ambito dell’esame della “Proposta di direttiva del

Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio, relativa al miglioramento delle condizioni di lavoro nel lavoro mediante piattaforme digitali
(COM (2021) 762/inaT)”, XI Commissione (Lavoro pubblico e privato) della Camera dei deputati, 20 April
2022.
19 Healy J., Pekarek A., Work and wages in the gig economy: can there be a high road?, in Wilkinson A., Barry M. (eds),

The Future of Work and Employment, Elgar, 2020, 161; Unterschütz J., Digital work – real bargaining: how can the
sustainability of social dialogue be ensured in the digital era?, in Kenner J., Florczak I., Otto M. (eds), Precarious Work.
The Challenge for Labour Law in Europe, Elgar, 2019, 222-241.
20 Gaudio G., Algorithmic management, sindacato e tutela giurisdizionale, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 1, 2022, 30-

74.
21 La Tegola O., Il conflitto collettivo nell'era digitale, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2020, 638 ff.
22 Unterschütz J., Come together now! New technologies and collective representation of platform workers, in Acta Universitatis

Lodziensis, Folia Iuridica, 95, 2021, 61-69.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                  69
     Maria Giovannone                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                            Section: Theme




   Thirdly, the possibility for courts and competent authorities to order platforms to disclose
relevant evidence, including confidential information on algorithms, is enshrined (Art. 16).
This provision could have a decisive impact in court because digital platforms often refuse
to make detailed information on how the algorithm works available to the court. It is true
that States must ensure that the courts take effective measures to protect such information
(Art. 16(2)). However, inevitably the provision establishes a sort of disclosure obligation for
platforms that comes into tension with the protection of intellectual property and
commercial secrets. On this point, the proposal is ambiguous. First it clarifies that “(d)igital
labour platforms should not be required to disclose the detailed functioning of their
automated monitoring and decision-making systems, including algorithms, or other detailed
data that contains commercial secrets or is protected by intellectual property rights”.
However, the next statement admits that “the result of those considerations should not be a
refusal to provide all the information required by this Directive”.23
   In addition, the provision limits the disclosure obligation only to proceedings concerning
the correct determination of the employment situation (Art. 16(1)). The literal interpretation
of the rule could hinder the extension of its effects beyond the judgment on contractual
classification. This information is however decisive for assessing in court the existence of
discrimination caused precisely by the functioning of the algorithm, without addressing the
question of contractual qualification.24
   Indeed, the anti-discrimination law (of EU derivation) makes possible to protect platform
workers regardless of the type of contract.25 Although there was no room to investigate, in a
well-known Italian court case, the judge condemned a digital platform for indirect
discrimination arguing that the “blindness” of automatic decision processing feeds the
discriminatory potential.26 This argumentative passage is in line with the case-law of the
CJEU, according to which the lack of transparency of the decision-making mechanisms
assumes evidential relevance.27
   Yet, access to information even in court cases on discrimination could facilitate the
ascertainment of discriminatory outputs caused by algorithmic functioning. One solution is
the possibility for Member States to introduce rules in this regard that are more favourable
to platform workers, including self-employed workers (Art. 16(3)).


23 Recital 33, COM(2021) 762 final.
24 On the issue of discrimination in platform work, Moore P.V., The Mirror for (Artificial) Intelligence: In Whose
Reflection?, in Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal, 41, 47, 2019, 47-68; Schubert C., Hütt M. T., Economy-on-
demand and the fairness of algorithms, in European Labour Law Journal, 10, 1, 2019, 3-16; Kullmann M., nt. (7).
25 Alessi C., Lavoro tramite piattaforma e divieti di discriminazione nell’UE, in Alessi C., Barbera M., Guaglianone L.

(eds), Impresa, lavoro e non lavoro nell’economia digitale, Cacucci, 2019, 683-698.
26 Order of the Court of Bologna, 31 December 2020. Barbera M., Discriminazioni algoritmiche e forme di

discriminazione, in Labor, 7, 1, 2022, I.7 ff.; Santagata De Castro R., Anti-discrimination Law in the Italian Courts: the
new frontiers of the topic in the age of algorithms, WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT – 440/2021, 16 ff.; Perulli A.,
La discriminazione algoritmica: brevi note introduttive a margine dell’Ordinanza del Tribunale di Bologna, in
LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2021, 1-7; Pietrogiovanni V., Deliveroo and Riders’ Strikes: Discriminations in the Age of
Algorithms, in International Labor Rights Case Law, 7, 2021, 317-321; , Peruzzi M., Il diritto antidiscriminatorio al test di
intelligenza artificiale, in Labor, 7, 1, 2021, I.48 ff.
27 CJEU – Case, C-109/88, Danfoss [1989] ECLI:EU:C:1989:383; CJEU – Case 318/86, Commission v. French

Republic [1988].

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                              70
     Maria Giovannone                                                    Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                       Section: Theme




2.2. The certification of self-employment contracts: the discarded option to be
“rescued”.

    From the overview of the measures just analysed, a series of provisions emerge aimed at
facilitating controls and guaranteeing judicial and collective means of redress. Instead,
concerning the implementation of the legal presumption, Article 4(1) provides that Member
States be required to establish “a framework of measures, in accordance with their national
legal and judicial systems”. The legal presumption also applies in all relevant administrative
and judicial proceedings. In addition, States must formulate guidelines for the competent
authorities and strengthen controls and inspections on the ground (para. 3).
    It seems that the provision focuses mainly on verifying the correct contractual
classification through ex post implementation mechanisms, i.e., after the moment of
establishment of the employment relationship (or the commercial relationship) depending
on the type of contract chosen, if any. These refer to checks and inspections on the one
hand, and recourse to the courts on the other: instruments of primary importance but which
presuppose a certain capillarity and continuity (for the former) and discretionary activation
by the employee (for the latter).
    Unfortunately, there is no trace of the so-called “ex ante” verification instruments to
ensure the correct contractual classification of the employment relationship, especially if it is
self-employed. These could certainly include the certification of employment contracts,
which is an administrative procedure in Article 4(1) logic.
    Nevertheless, among the measures considered in the impact assessment, Option A2
envisaged introducing a combination of procedural and litigation prevention measures:
reversal of the burden of proof, the procedure for the certification of contracts, and
clarification of insurance and social protection for self-employed workers.28
    In this package of measures, the institution of certification would be introduced to ensure
the correct contractual qualification when establishing the employment relationship. In
detail, a simplified out-of-court procedure would be set up within an independent body
(labour authority; university), following the example of some national experiences.
Furthermore, the certification would be applied to all contractual relationships related to the
requesting platform and with the same organisational characteristics. Its validity would cease
with the substantial modification of contractual conditions. Finally, in the event of an appeal
against the certification act, the burden of proof would shift to the employee.
    It is clear that this option, for which many digital platforms expressed a preference,29 was
based on the assumption that it would primarily protect the self-employed on the platform
by limiting cases of contractual reclassification. Moreover, it should be emphasised that these
measures were placed as alternatives to the legal presumption.
    The usefulness of introducing certification in addition to the measures introduced in the
directive proposal cannot be denied, given that the multifaceted nature of platform work



28   European Commission, SWD(2021) 396 final/2, 21.
29   Ibid, 23.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                         71
     Maria Giovannone                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                                 Section: Theme




does not recommend seeking a single regulatory solution.30 If it were true that many digital
platforms would quickly change their organisational model in order to escape contractual
reclassification, the passage (especially mandatory) to certification bodies could represent a
guarantee of the correct qualification of self-employed work relationships. This mechanism
would offer at least a twofold advantage: on the one hand, it would prevent the legal
presumption from inevitably leading to a “case-by-case” judicial review; on the other hand,
it would guarantee the use of genuine self-employment.


3. The Italian model in a complex regulatory framework.

   To minimise litigation especially in non-standard labour, the proposed suggestions are
based on the Italian experience of the “Certification Commissions”, which have long been a
voluntary tool to assess and validate the correct contractual qualification of employment
relationships.31 Third parties and impartial parties are authorized to create and manage
Commissions, including Universities and bilateral bodies set up by the social partners.32
   Introduced in 2003,33 the certification procedure aims to provide certainty on the correct
action of the contractual parties in a context in which contractual types proliferate in order
to satisfy the need for flexibility of companies.34 The procedure has a “deflationary effect”
of judicial disputes on the contractual classification, because it guarantees a preventive
control on the contractual regularity through the evaluation activity of the Commissions.
Certification Commissions are impartial and technically competent bodies.35
   Originally designed to prevent litigation on certain atypical types of contracts,36 the
certification procedure was then extended to all contracts in which a work performance can
be deducted, directly or indirectly.37 Therefore, contracts of a commercial nature, such as
procurement contracts, may also be subject to certification. This aspect is particularly
relevant for the present analysis, because the certification of the “terms of use” of digital
platforms that impact on work relationships could also be evaluated as possible.


30 Del Frate M., Lavoro digitale e certificazione dei contratti: l’iniziativa regolativa della Commissione europea, in Diritto delle
Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2021, 1221.
31 On this, Sciotti R., Considerazioni sulla rilevanza qualificatoria della certificazione dei contratti di lavoro, WP C.S.D.L.E.

“Massimo D’Antona”.IT, - 2004/24; Avondola A., Legge, Contratto e Certificazione nella qualificazione dei rapporti di
lavoro, Jovene Editore, 2013; Novella M., Certificazione in materia di lavoro e tutela giurisdizionale, in Lavoro e diritto, 2-
3, 2014, 347-372; Ciucciovino S., La certificazione dei contratti di lavoro: problemi e questioni aperte, Giappichelli, 2014.
32 Art. 76 d.lgs. n. 276/2003.
33 D. lgs. n. 276/2003 (artt. 75 ff.). For further details, Ciucciovino S., Voce Certificazione dei contratti di lavoro,

2016, https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/certificazione-dei-contratti-di-lavoro_(Diritto-on-line)/.
34 Asnaghi A., La certificazione dei contratti di lavoro: un lungimirante regalo della visione modernista di Marco Biagi, in

LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2019, 1-7.
35 Art. 76, co. 1, d.lgs. n. 276/2003. The bodies authorized to set up and manage the Certification Commissions

are: bilateral bodies; Territorial Directorates of Labour and Provinces; public and private Universities; General
Direction for the Protection of Working Conditions of the Labour Ministry; Provincial Councils of the Order
of Labour Consultants.
36 Part-time contracts, intermittent and shared employment contracts, project contracts and joint venture

contracts.
37 Art. 30, Legge n. 183/2010.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                     72
     Maria Giovannone                                                                         Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                     Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                            Section: Theme




   The Commissions’ activity is first substantiated in the recognition of the negotiating will
of the parties, which assumes evidential value also in the judgment. Relying on the
“collaborative participation” of the parties, the Commissions acquire information aimed at
adopting the act of certification (declarations and meetings with the parties, documentation,
etc.). Secondly, the Commissions verify the concrete correspondence of the chosen contract
with the type required by law, ascertaining the conscious consent of the contractual parties.
At the same time, the Commissions provide legal advice and assistance to the parties at the
time of signing the contract and of any subsequent modification of the contract.38 In this
way, the Commissions support the parties to comply with the requirements and limits that
the legal system imposes for the chosen type of contract.
   The outcome of the procedure is constituted by the reasoned certification document that
has the value of an administrative act to ascertain the qualification of relations between
private individuals towards public authorities (Ministry of Labour, Revenue Agency, social
security institutions). Therefore, the act of certification has binding effect on the contractual
parties and third parties concerned, and can only be contested in court. However, the appeal
to the court must necessarily be preceded by an attempt at conciliation facing the
Commission which certified the contract. In addition, the appeal can only take place on three
grounds: incorrect classification of the contract; non-compliance between the certified
contract and its execution; defects in consent.39
   The certification may have a retroactive effect and start from the beginning of the
execution of the contract, if the Commission is able to verify the compliant execution starting
from the beginning of the relationship.40 However, it should be noted that the certification
concerns the contract and not the verification of the execution of the work relationship. Ex-
post controls remain among the tasks of public supervisory authorities and judicial bodies.
Therefore, there is no risk of overlapping tasks. Nevertheless, legal certainty and contractual
stability are guaranteed by the fact that public bodies are prohibited from exercising their
typical powers over a certified contract.41
   The Italian model was taken into consideration by the European Commission during the
consultation phases for the adoption of the proposal, precisely because of its potential to
prevent judicial litigation and to ensure compliance with the legal requirements.
   In Italy, the certification procedure has taken on an increasingly important role in the face
of the reforms that, in the last decade, have innovated the regulatory framework on
employment relationships. The legislator has never explicitly refuted the subordination-
autonomy dichotomy, but has in fact created a “quadripartition” of notions:42




38 Art. 81, d.lgs. n. 276/2003.
39 Art. 80, d.lgs. n. 276/2003.
40 Art. 79, d.lgs. n. 276/2003.
41 The object of the interdiction are the powers of ascertaining warning, notifications, social security and

insurance recovery and the sanctioning powers.
42 Vidiri G., Art. 2 del d.lgs. n. 81/2015 e lavoro autonomo: verso un diritto del lavoro a formazione giurisprudenziale?, in

Argomenti di diritto del lavoro, 1, 2015, 1231.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                              73
     Maria Giovannone                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                                Section: Theme




subordination,43 self-employment44 and, in the second area, continuous coordination45 and
hetero-organization.46
   This theoretical structure has direct applicative repercussions on the certification of
employment contracts, which becomes central above all in the search for the contractual
classification of “non-pure” self-employed workers. The reference is primarily to the last two
notions.
   Firstly, the “coordinated and continuous collaboration” relationship is characterized by
three elements: the continuity of the relationship, the coordination between the client and
the worker and the predominantly personal character of the work activity.47 In essence, it is
a sub-type of self-employment, but it differs from it because the pure self-employed worker
has the exclusive obligation to respect the contractual conditions and to proceed “by the
book” (art. 2224 c.c.), without any coordination constraint.48 Recently, the legislator has
dissolved some doubts about the distinctive elements of coordinated and continuous
collaboration, enhancing the organizational autonomy of the worker.49 However,
interpretation differences on “coordination” between the worker and the client still remain.50


3.1. Hetero-organized work at the test of certification.

   Even more heated is the debate on hetero-organized work, introduced above all to protect
riders. It is important to point out that this is self-employment, but the protective institutions
of subordination status (selectively) apply to it. In summary, hetero-organized work takes the
form of mainly personal and continuous work performances and whose modalities of
execution are organized by the client (as a platform). The rules provide that the parties can


43 Art. 2094 c.c.
44 Art. 2222 c.c.
45 Art. 409, n. 3, c.p.c.
46 Art. 2, d.lgs. n. 81/2015, as amended by Legge n. 128/2019.
47 Santoro Passarelli G., I rapporti di collaborazione coordinata e continuativa. Una fattispecie in via di trasformazione?,

Jovene, 2015, 2.
48 D’Ascola S., La collaborazione organizzata cinque anni dopo, in Lavoro e diritto, 1, 2020, 4; Pessi M., Ancora sul concetto

di coordinamento, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 3, 2020, 337 ff.
49 Art 15, Legge n. 81/2017. On the topic, Santoro Passarelli G., Civiltà giuridica e trasformazioni sociali nel diritto

del lavoro, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 2, 2019, 425-427; Perulli A., Il Jobs Act del lavoro autonomo e agile: come
cambiano i concetti di subordinazione e autonomia nel diritto del lavoro, WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n.
341/2017, 16 ff.; Ferraro F., Riflessioni sul coordinamento ex art. 409 n. 3 c.p.c., in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro,
4, 2020, 543 ff; Razzolini O., I confini tra subordinazione, collaborazioni etero-organizzate e lavoro autonomo coordinato: una
rilettura, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 2, 2020, 345-380., Marazza M., In difesa del lavoro autonomo (dopo la legge
n. 128 del 2019), in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 1, 2020, 61 ff.; Pisani C., La nozione legale di coordinamento
introdotta dall'articolo 15 della legge n. 81/2017, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2018, 823 ff. Before the reform
intervention, part of the doctrine already believed that these collaborations were characterized by a rigorous
organizational autonomy. Cfr. Perulli A., Il lavoro autonomo, le collaborazioni coordinate e le prestazioni organizzate dal
committente, WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 272/2015, 43. The “coordination” is therefore expressed
through the agreement between the parties. On this point, Nogler L., Ancora su “tipo” e rapporto di lavoro subordinato
nell’impresa, in Argomenti di diritto del lavoro, 1, 2002, 128-129.
50 Ex multis, Ferraro F., ibid, 543 ff., considers that it is difficult to distinguish clearly between the employer’s

instructions and the coordination between the client and the “collaborator”. Contra, Zoppoli A., Le collaborazioni
eterorganizzate tra antiche questioni, vincoli di sistema e potenzialità, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2020, 727 ff.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                   74
     Maria Giovannone                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                                Section: Theme




activate the certification procedure to attest the absence of the hetero-organized work’s
requirements.51
    To be honest, Italian literature is still strongly divided on two interpretative fronts: on the
one hand, there are those who place hetero-organized work in the area of self-employment
and those who, on the contrary, consider it in the ground of subordination relationship.52
Rarely, hetero-organized work was even considered a tertium genus.53
         Proponents of subordination claim that a broadening of the “subordination” notion,
beyond the concept of hetero-direction, has been accomplished. The hetero-organization
would indeed demonstrate the employment relationship, given that the managerial power of
the employer represents the overall organization of the work performance.54 Art. 2, d.lgs. no.
81/2015, as reformed in 2019, would therefore specify the most modern definition of
subordination, introducing a presumption of subordination55 or an “apparent rule” that
contains a specification of the subordination indices:56 it would be a “soft” subordination
(i.e. subordinazione attenuata) on the basis of the jurisprudential evolution.57
    On the contrary, those who support the thesis of self-employment point out that the
legislative provision does not contain any defining and systematic element that implements
a typological modification of the subordination relationship (art. 2094 c.c.). Hetero-organized
worker does not undergo the managerial power of the employer (“intrinsic” power related
to the work performance), but a less pervasive faculty of the client to organize the work
performance to make it compatible with the productive factors of the enterprise (“extrinsic”
factor related to this work performance).58 In other words, this “functional adaptation”
cannot configure the hierarchical power of the employer (art. 2086 c.c.).59
    Ultimately, the ratio followed by the legislator was to discern a particular type of so-called
“parasubordinate work” that expresses a greater need for protection, extending the




51 Art. 2, co. 3, d.lgs. n. 15/2015.
52 For a reconstruction of the debate, D’Ascola S., La collaborazione organizzata cinque anni dopo, in Lavoro e diritto,
1, 2020, 11 ff.
53 Carabelli U., Spinelli C., La Corte d’appello di Torino ribalta il verdetto di primo grado: i riders sono collaboratori etero-

organizzati, in Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della previdenza sociale, 1, 2019, 91 ff.
54 Razzolini O., La nuova disciplina delle collaborazioni organizzate dal committente. Prime considerazioni, WP CSDLE

“Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 266, 2015, 2 ff.; Treu T., In tema di Jobs Act. Il riordino dei tipi contrattuali, in Giornale
di diritto del lavoro e di relazioni industriali, 146, 2015, 155 ff.
55 Tiraboschi M., Il lavoro etero-organizzato, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2015, 978-987; Nuzzo V., I confini

delle tutele lavoristiche, oggi, in Costituzionalismo.it, 1, 2020, 73-118; Nogler L., La subordinazione nel d.lgs. n. 81 del 2015:
alla ricerca dell’autorità del punto di vista giuridico, in WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, 267, 2015, 16; Persiani
M., Note sulla disciplina di alcune collaborazioni coordinate, in Argomenti di diritto del lavoro, 6, 2015, 1260. Cfr. Ferraro
G., Collaborazioni organizzate dal committente, in Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro, 1, 2016, 53 ff.
56 Tosi P., L’art. 2, comma 1, d.lgs. n. 81/2015: una norma apparente?, in Argomenti di diritto del lavoro, 6, 2015, 1130.
57 Santoro Passarelli G., I rapporti di collaborazione organizzati dal committente e le collaborazioni continuative e coordinate

ex art. 409 n. 3 c.p.c., WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 278/2015, 16.
58 Perulli A., nt. (49), 26 ff.
59 Maresca A., Brevi cenni sulle collaborazioni eterorganizzate, in Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro, 1, 2020, 73 ff.

Similmente, Zoppoli A., nt. (50), 709.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                   75
     Maria Giovannone                                                                              Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                          Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                                 Section: Theme




protective apparatus of employment status:60 it is rather “soft” autonomy (autonomia
attenuata).61
    At the jurisprudential level, the interpretative intervention of the Court of Cassation in
support of the self-employment thesis was decisive.62 Anyway, despite adopting different
interpretations on the nature of hetero-organized work, many rulings have recognized
platform workers as hetero-organized workers.63
    At the national level, strong contrasts on the correct contractual qualification of platform
workers persist.64 These ambiguities are based first of all on the controversial interpretation
of hetero-organized work, but also on the need to reinterpret the subordination indices to
adapt the concepts of dependence to social reality and new organizational business models.65
On the basis of this assumption, other courts have recognised the existence of an
employment relationship between the riders and the digital platforms.66
    Now, it is not easy to predict how the relative presumption and the indices of
subordination, introduced by the EU proposal, will fit into this tangle of interpretation. As
anticipated, it is possible that these instruments will push for a broad interpretation of the
Italian notion of subordination or will have little effect because, de facto, these indices are
assimilated within hetero-organized work, a “gateway” to the protection system of the
subordination status.67
    But in light of the complex Italian framework, it is clear that the certification procedure
can play a central role in the search for the correct contractual classification of platform
workers. As anticipated, it is precisely for this reason that the legislator has established the
possibility for platforms to resort to certification commissions, in order to ascertain the lack
of the requirements of hetero-organized work in favour of other forms of self-employment.


60 Magnani M., Autonomia, subordinazione, coordinazione nel d.lgs. n. 81/2015, WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT,
n. 294, 2016, 10 ff.
61 Ciucciovino S., Le “collaborazioni organizzate dal committente” nel confine tra autonomia e subordinazione, in Rivista

Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 3, 2016, 321-343.
62 Cass. 24 gennaio 2020, n. 1663 in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 1, 2020 con nota di Maresca A.
63 Ex multis, Trib. Torino 7 maggio 2018, n. 778, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2018, with note by Ferrante

V.; Trib. Milano 10 settembre 2018, n. 1853, in Labor, 2019, with note by Forlivesi M., App. Torino 4 febbraio
2019, n. 26, in LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2019, with note by De Luca Tamajo R., and in Diritto delle Relazioni
Industriali, 3, 2019, with note by Del Frate M.; Trib. Bologna 24 febbraio 2022, n. 111. In addition to riders,
about call center outbound, Trib. Roma, 6 maggio 2019, n. 4243 in Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della previdenza
sociale, 2, 2020 with note by Giovannone M.
64 Tra tutti, Cordella C., Il lavoro dei rider: fenomenologia, inquadramento giuridico e diritti sindacali, WP C.S.D.L.E.

“Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 441, 2021, 1-37; De Marco C., Garilli A., L’enigma qualificatorio dei riders. Un incontro
ravvicinato tra dottrina e giurisprudenza, WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 435, 2021, 1-30; Pilati A., Le
collaborazioni organizzate dal committente e le incertezze della giurisprudenza sul lavoro tramite piattaforma, in Labour & Law
Issues, 7, 2, 2021, 55-80; Santoro Passarelli G., Sui lavoratori che operano mediante piattaforme anche digitali, sui riders e
il ragionevole equilibrio della Cassazione 1663/2020, WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 411, 2020, pp. 1-
10; Perulli A., Il diritto del lavoro “oltre la subordinazione”: le collaborazioni etero-organizzate e le tutele minime per i riders
autonomi, WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 410, 2020, 1-73. See also the entire Extraordinary Issue
of Massimario di giurisprudenza del lavoro, 2020.
65 Re-proposing the reasoning of Trib. Palermo, 24 novembre 2020, n. 3570, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali,

1, 2021, with note by Ferrante V.
66 Ibid.; recently, Trib. Milano 20 aprile 2022, n. 1018.
67 Tosi P., Riflessioni brevi sulla Proposta di Direttiva del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio relativa al miglioramento delle

condizioni di lavoro nel lavoro mediante piattaforme digitali, in LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2022, 5; Ponterio C., nt. (11), 8-9.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                     76
     Maria Giovannone                                                                             Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                                Section: Theme




Furthermore, the Commission verifies also compliance with art. 2222 c.c. (pure self-
employment) and art. 409 c.p.c. n. 3 (coordinated and continuous collaboration relationship).


4. The (multifaceted) potential of certification procedures in platform work.

    However, the use of certification procedures remains a faculty. It is probably for this
reason that the activity of the Certification Commissions has not yet managed to attract
digital platforms. Effectively, these workers are usually hired with occasional assignments or
they are even irregular and without a contract.68 On the other hand, the certification activity
is particularly intense on multiple contractual areas (e.g. self-employment, coordinated and
continuous collaborations, agency contracts, organic and corporate relationships, etc.). It is
therefore clear that the imposition of an EU obligation to use the certification procedure
could force companies – which choose to use contractual relationships other than
subordination – to submit to the technical and impartial assessment of a certifying body.
Where they exist, these bodies enjoy a high level of expertise and a long experience in
discerning the correct contractual qualification of atypical workers. Certification is also a
rapid administrative tool, with a manifest deflationary purpose, which reduces the legal
uncertainties and the time (and costs) of judicial litigation. But that’s not all. In fact, the
Commissions could play a fundamental role in several respects, and not only on that of the
contractual qualification which has been evaluated by the European Commission.
    First, as usual, these bodies could verify that the contents of the contract comply with the
nomen juris chosen by the platform. As anticipated, in the Italian legal system, the criteria for
subordination listed in the EU proposal are compatible with hetero-organized work, in the
area of self-employment. Those criteria do not refer only to the employer’s managerial
power, which is the essential characteristic of employment relationships. Rather, many
criteria are compatible with the client’s possibility to organize the worker’s performance to
make it fungible with the factors of production and the results of the enterprise, as provided
for hetero-organized work.69 Clear examples are the rules on external appearance (Article
4(2)(b)), the verification of the quality of results (Article 4(2)(c)) or the restriction of the
freedom to organise working time (Article 4(2)(d)). To tell the truth, the criteria go even
beyond the concept of hetero-organization, referring to the condition of “economic
dependence” of the worker on the platform.
    In particular, the limitation placed on the possibility of building a client base or
performing other work (Article 4(2)(e)) weighs heavily. It is for this reason that the first
commentators already consider hetero-organized work as a “preventive conformation” to
the proposal for a directive.70 In fact, hetero-organization allows access to (most of) the
protections of subordination, ensuring a high level of protection of workers. It will be up to
the national legislature to take a position when transposing the directive.

68 See nt. (17).
69 Perulli A., nt. (49), 28. The same A., Il diritto del lavoro “oltre la subordinazione”: le collaborazioni etero-organizzate e le
tutele minime per i riders autonomi, WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT – 410/2020, pp. 1-73.
70 Tosi P., nt. (67).



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                    77
     Maria Giovannone                                                                    Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                       Section: Theme




   However, it should not be underestimated that these indices refer to subordinate work,
pushing the Italian legal system to a broad interpretation of the concept of subordination.
Given that these are elastic indices, referring to all aspects of the work relationship, and that
“two out of five” are enough to recognize subordination, proof to the contrary for platforms
would become almost impossible.
   For this reason, acting preventively by resorting to the certification procedure can limit
the risks of reclassification of those work relationships, of an autonomous nature, truly
hetero-organized. As mentioned, it is possible to activate the certification procedure to
ascertain the absence of the requirements of hetero-organized work.71 In practical terms, the
Certification Commissions must ascertain the absence of hetero-direction, i.e. the
managerial, control and disciplinary powers of the client that demonstrate the bond of
subordination. Once the autonomous nature of the employment relationship has been
ascertained (art. 2222 of the Italian Civil Code), the Commissions exclude, or not, the absence
of the client’s hetero-organization powers, with reference first of all (but not only) to the
times and places of the service. Therefore, if the absence of hetero-organization is found,
the work relationship is qualified as subordinate. Otherwise, the relationship is classified as
hetero-organized. This is an apparently negative certification, but which nevertheless results in
the qualification of the work contract on the basis of the elements characterizing the
contractual type.72
   It should not be forgotten that the Certification Commissions also verify the existence of
the coordinated and continuous collaboration relationship.73 In this case, the verification
focuses on the methods of coordination between the parties, which must be mutually
agreed.74 In fact, in the Italian context, in some cases the platforms have decided to adopt
this type of contract, always in the area of self-employment.75
   Second, certification could be extended to the clauses of commercial contracts or to the
“terms of use” unilaterally imposed by platforms, especially where it is company practice not
to conclude employment contracts with “providers” (e.g., crowd workers).76 Moreover, in
this hypothesis, the certification of “terms of use” would make it possible to obviate the
material difficulties of certifying discontinuous and very short-term contracts, indirectly
protecting the large number of workers who, over time, will be bound by those terms. In
fact, the certification activity can concern any contract, including commercial ones, in which
a work performance is deduced, even indirectly (for example, procurement and
subcontracting contracts).77


71 Art. 2, co. 3, d.lgs. n. 15/2015.
72 Ciucciovino S., nt. (33).
73 Cfr. supra § 3.
74 Art. 2, co. 1, d. lgs. n. 81/2015; art. 409 n. 3) cod. proc. civ.
75 According to a survey by Inapp (the national institute for the analysis of public policies), 20% of platform

workers declare that the work relationship is qualified as a coordinated and continuous collaboration. Cfr. De
Minicis M., Marocco M., nt. (4).
76 Mangan D., Delivering on the Binary Divide, in European Labour Law Journal, 12, 2, 2021, 232 ff., stressed the need

to strengthen contractual protection mechanisms for self-employed workers in a clearly weak position vis-à-vis
counterparts who unilaterally impose contractual terms.
77 Art. 75, d.lgs. n. 276/2003.



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                         78
     Maria Giovannone                                                                                Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                                   Section: Theme




    Third, during the preparatory phase, the Commission should assess the functioning of
algorithmic management and its compatibility with the chosen type of contract, providing
itself with highly qualified professionals.78 Finally, the broad scope of the certification
procedure would also make it possible to enhance the assistance and consultancy phase that
precedes the conclusion of contracts, to support platforms and workers in identifying the
authentic contractual will.
    Recourse to certification could thus fulfil its deflective function by ascertaining the
compatibility of the algorithmic management model with the contractual models. On this
point, it should be noted that certification does not prevent the judge from reviewing the
certification measure. However, it should be mentioned that the parties must make a
preliminary attempt at conciliation before the Commission and, at the trial, the judge must
abide by the parties’ statements during the certification, which could make up valuable
evidential material on the contractual qualification.79
    On this reading, alongside the instruments introduced to protect platform-based
employees, certification procedures appear to be a useful enforcement mechanism to protect
genuine self-employed workers who, among other things, make up the majority of platform-
based workers according to the European Commission.80 In this context, another purpose
of contract certification is even more corroborated, namely to provide certainty in the
relationships between companies and public administrations regarding tax and contribution
controls.81


5. Conclusion.

   By reintroducing the opposition between employed and self-employed work, the directive
proposal introduced several instruments to combat bogus self-employment.
   However, it will be necessary to understand to what extent the legal presumption and the
less rigid interpretation of “dependence”, suggested by the new subordination indices, will
make it possible to absorb into employment those working activities that currently fall under
the classification of self-employment and the intermediate categories introduced in national
legislation.82
   The fact remains that the Commission’s aim of ensuring legal certainty within the
established subordination/autonomy dichotomy requires a pragmatic approach to ensure the
correct contractual qualification pursued by Chapter II of the proposal. Strengthening and
coordination of enforcement instruments are therefore essential to ensure that the legal
presumption has the effect of reclassifying falsely autonomous employment relationships.

78 Also of this opinion Aniballi V., Il lavoro organizzato mediante piattaforma digitale: nuove sfide per le Commissioni di
certificazione, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2019, 1075 ff.; Benincasa G., Ai confini tra autonomia e
subordinazione: la qualificazione del rapporto di lavoro, note to Trib. Bologna 20 ottobre 2020, in Diritto delle Relazioni
Industriali, 4, 2020, 1141-1147.
79 Aniballi V., ibid.; Rausei P., La certificazione dei contratti di lavoro, in Diritto e pratica del lavoro, 2020, 34-35.
80 European Commission, COM(2021) 761 final, 5.
81 Nogler L., La certificazione dei contratti di lavoro, in Quaderni di diritto del lavoro e delle relazioni industriali, 2004, 15 ff.
82 Bronzini G., nt. (2).



https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                       79
     Maria Giovannone                                                                            Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                                        Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                               Section: Theme




    Nonetheless, the affirmation of the Commission according to which “genuine self-
employed people working through platforms will indirectly benefit from more autonomy and
independence, as a result of digital labour platforms adapting their practices to avoid any risk
of reclassification”83 appears unfoundedly optimistic. On the contrary, in these moments of
organisational model transitions, there is a risk that digital platforms devise more
sophisticated mechanisms to conceal the use of bogus self-employment.84
    However, we cannot blindly oppose the tout court use of self-employment within the new
organizational models that inevitably push in this direction. It is one thing to think that self-
employment needs greater protection, and it is now clear that we should move in this
direction regardless of the dichotomous approach;85 it is another thing to hinder recourse to
self-employment through the continuous forcing of contractual schemes aimed at a priori
“pigeonholing” the platform workers, notoriously a “moving target” difficult to place in the
narrow dichotomous dialectic.86
    For this reason, within the “framework of measures”87 to be adopted by Member States
to assess the existence of the rebuttable presumption, enforcement instruments with a
preventive and deflationary purpose, such as certification procedures could therefore be
included to ensure the proper use of genuine self-employment. The certification procedure
has in fact become for the parties a moment of information and awareness on reciprocal
rights and obligations, in order to combine the legal logic with the productive-organizational
ones.88 In this sense, it is a suitable tool to address the real and current dynamics of the labour
market,89 which rigid regulatory logics can hardly manage.




                                                        Bibliography

Aniballi V., Il lavoro organizzato mediante piattaforma digitale: nuove sfide per le Commissioni di
certificazione, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2019, 1073-1096.
Asnaghi A., La certificazione dei contratti di lavoro: un lungimirante regalo della visione modernista di
Marco Biagi, in LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2019, 1-7.
Avondola A., Legge, Contratto e Certificazione nella qualificazione dei rapporti di lavoro, Jovene
Editore, 2013.
Bandelloni G., Corsi e ricorsi dell’eterodirezione, in Labour & Law Issues, 7, 1, 2022, 1-31.

83 European Commission, COM(2021) 762 final, 3.
84 ETUC has highlighted how digital platforms are already changing their contractual models in an "attractive"
way, but always in the context of self-employment, to avoid contractual requalification. Cfr. ETUC, Platforms
trying to trick workers out of rights, Press release, 11 May 2022.
85 Perulli A., Treu T., “In tutte le sue forme e applicazioni”: per un nuovo Statuto del lavoro (forthcoming).
86 Garben S., Protecting Workers in the Online Platform Economy: An overview of regulatory and policy developments in the

EU, European Risk Observatory Discussion paper, 2017, 14.
87 Art. 4., par. 1, Ibid.
88 Tiraboschi M., La c.d. certificazione dei lavori “atipici” e la sua tenuta giudiziaria, in Lavoro e Diritto, 1, 2003, 101-126.
89 Zampini G., La certificazione volontaria dei contratti di lavoro: la parabola di una riforma, in Massimario di giurisprudenza

del lavoro, 1, 2020, 238.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                                  80
 Maria Giovannone                                                                 Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                         Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                Section: Theme




Barbieri M., Prime osservazioni sulla directive proposal per il miglioramento delle condizioni di lavoro nel
lavoro con piattaforma, in Labour & Law Issues, 7, 2, 2021, C1-C20.
Benincasa G., Ai confini tra autonomia e subordinazione: la qualificazione del rapporto di lavoro, note
to sentenza Trib. Bologna 20 ottobre 2020, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2020, 1141-
1147.
Bertolini A., Alyanak O., Cant C., López T., Agüera P., Howson K., Graham M., Fraiwork
Response to the European Commission’s Proposal for a Directive on Platform Work, Fairwork, online,
2021.
Bronzini G., La directive proposal sul lavoro nelle piattaforme digitali tra esigenze di tutela immediata e le
sfide dell’”umanesimo digitale”, in LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2022, 1-12.
Carabelli U., Spinelli C., La Corte d’appello di Torino ribalta il verdetto di primo grado: i riders sono
collaboratori etero-organizzati, in Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della previdenza sociale, 1, 2019, 91 ff.
Ciucciovino S., La certificazione dei contratti di lavoro: problemi e questioni aperte, Giappichelli, 2014.
Ciucciovino S., Voce Certificazione dei contratti di lavoro, Enciclopedia Giuridica Treccani.
Ciucciovino S., Le “collaborazioni organizzate dal committente” nel confine tra autonomia e
subordinazione, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 3, 2016, 321-343.
Cordella C., Il lavoro dei rider: fenomenologia, inquadramento giuridico e diritti sindacali, WP C.S.D.L.E.
“Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 441, 2021.
Deakin S., Decoding Employment Status, in King’s Law Journal, 31, 2, 2020, 180-193.
D’Ascola S., La collaborazione organizzata cinque anni dopo, in Lavoro e diritto, 1, 2020, 3-31.
De Marco C., Garilli A., L’enigma qualificatorio dei riders. Un incontro ravvicinato tra dottrina e
giurisprudenza, WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 435, 2021.
De Minicis M., Marocco M., Consistenza, caratteristiche e bisogni dei lavoratori delle piattaforme. Quali
strategie regolative alla luce della proposta di Direttiva?, in LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2022, 1-13.
De Stefano V., Aloisi A., European Legal framework for digital labour platforms, European
Commission, Luxembourg, 2018.
Del Frate M., Lavoro digitale e certificazione dei contratti: l’iniziativa regolativa della Commissione
europea, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2021, 1217-1224.
Ferraro F., Riflessioni sul coordinamento ex art. 409 n. 3 c.p.c., in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro,
4, 2020, 543 ff.
Ferraro G., Collaborazioni organizzate dal committente, in Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro, 1, 2016,
53 ff.
Garben S., Protecting Workers in the Online Platform Economy: An overview of regulatory and policy
developments in the EU, European Risk Observatory Discussion paper, 2017.
Giubboni S., La proposta di direttiva della Commissione europea sul lavoro tramite piattaforma digitale,
in Menabò di Etica ed economia, gennaio 2022.
Kullmann M., Platformisation’ of Work: An EU Perspective on Introducing a Legal Presumption, in
European Labour Law Journal, 13, 1, 2021, 66-80.
López López J., de le Court A., When the Corporate Veil is Lifted: Synergies of Public Labour
Institutions and Platform Workers, in The King's College law journal, 31, 2, 2020, 324-335.
Magnani M., Autonomia, subordinazione, coordinazione nel d.lgs. n. 81/2015, WP CSDLE
“Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 294, 2016.


https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                  81
 Maria Giovannone                                                                   Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                           Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                  Section: Theme




Mangan D., Delivering on the Binary Divide, in European Labour Law Journal, 12, 2, 2021, 226-
236.
Marazza M., In difesa del lavoro autonomo (dopo la legge n. 128 del 2019), in Rivista Italiana di Diritto
del Lavoro, 1, 2020, 61-72.
Maresca A., Brevi cenni sulle collaborazioni eterorganizzate, in Rivista italiana di diritto del lavoro, 1,
2020, 73-87.
Nogler L., Ancora su “tipo” e rapporto di lavoro subordinato nell’impresa, in Argomenti di diritto del
lavoro, 1, 2002, 109-153.
Nogler L., La certificazione dei contratti di lavoro, in Quaderni di diritto del lavoro e delle relazioni
industriali, 2004, 15 ff.
Nogler L., La subordinazione nel d.lgs. n. 81 del 2015: alla ricerca dell’autorità del punto di vista giuridico,
in WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, 267, 2015.
Novella M., Certificazione in materia di lavoro e tutela giurisdizionale, in Lavoro e diritto, 2-3, 2014,
347-372.
Nuzzo V., I confini delle tutele lavoristiche, oggi, in Costituzionalismo.it, 1, 2020, 73-118.
Persiani M., Note sulla disciplina di alcune collaborazioni coordinate, in Argomenti di diritto del lavoro,
6, 2015, 1257 -1266.
Perulli A., Il lavoro autonomo, le collaborazioni coordinate e le prestazioni organizzate dal committente,
WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 272/2015.
Perulli A., Il Jobs Act del lavoro autonomo e agile: come cambiano i concetti di subordinazione e autonomia
nel diritto del lavoro, WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 341/2017.
Perulli A., Il diritto del lavoro “oltre la subordinazione”: le collaborazioni etero-organizzate e le tutele
minime per i riders autonomi, WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 410, 2020.
Perulli A., Treu T., “In tutte le sue forme e applicazioni”: per un nuovo Statuto del lavoro (forthcoming).
Pessi M., Ancora sul concetto di coordinamento, in Rivista Italiana di Diritto del Lavoro, 3, 2020, 337-
348.
Pilati A., Le collaborazioni organizzate dal committente e le incertezze della giurisprudenza sul lavoro
tramite piattaforma, in Labour & Law Issues, 7, 2, 2021, 55-80.
Pisani C., La nozione legale di coordinamento introdotta dall'articolo 15 della legge n. 81/2017, in Diritto
delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2018, 823-834.
Ponterio C., La direzione della Direttiva, in LavoroDirittiEuropa, 1, 2022, 1-13.
Ratti L., A Long Road Towards the Regulation of Platform Work in the EU (forthcoming).
Rausei P., La certificazione dei contratti di lavoro, in Diritto e pratica del lavoro, 2020, 34-35.
Razzolini O., La nuova disciplina delle collaborazioni organizzate dal committente. Prime considerazioni,
WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 266, 2015.
Razzolini O., I confini tra subordinazione, collaborazioni etero-organizzate e lavoro autonomo coordinato:
una rilettura, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 2, 2020, 345-380.
Santoro Passarelli G., I rapporti di collaborazione coordinata e continuativa. Una fattispecie in via di
trasformazione?, Jovene Editore, 2015.
Santoro Passarelli G., I rapporti di collaborazione organizzati dal committente e le collaborazioni
continuative e coordinate ex art. 409 n. 3 c.p.c., WP CSDLE “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n. 278/2015.
Santoro Passarelli G., Civiltà giuridica e trasformazioni sociali nel diritto del lavoro, in Diritto delle
Relazioni Industriali, 2, 2019, 417-467.

https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                    82
 Maria Giovannone                                                                    Italian Labour Law e-Journal
                                                                                            Issue 1, Vol. 15 (2022)
                                                                                                   Section: Theme




Santoro Passarelli G., Sui lavoratori che operano mediante piattaforme anche digitali, sui riders e il
ragionevole equilibrio della Cassazione 1663/2020, WP C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, n.
411, 2020.
Santoro Passarelli G., La subordinazione in trasformazione, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, n. 4,
2021, 1125-1145.
Sciotti R., Considerazioni sulla rilevanza qualificatoria della certificazione dei contratti di lavoro, WP
C.S.D.L.E. “Massimo D’Antona”.IT, - 2004/24.
Tiraboschi M., La c.d. certificazione dei lavori “atipici” e la sua tenuta giudiziaria, in Lavoro e Diritto,
1, 2003, 101-126.
Tiraboschi M., Il lavoro etero-organizzato, in Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 4, 2015, 978-987.
Tosi P., L’art. 2, comma 1, d.lgs. n. 81/2015: una norma apparente?, in Argomenti di diritto del lavoro,
6, 2015, 1117-1132.
Tosi P., Riflessioni brevi sulla Proposta di Direttiva del Parlamento Europeo e del Consiglio relativa al
miglioramento delle condizioni di lavoro nel lavoro mediante piattaforme digitali, in LavoroDirittiEuropa,
1, 2022, 1-5.
Treu T., In tema di Jobs Act. Il riordino dei tipi contrattuali, in Giornale di diritto del lavoro e di relazioni
industriali, 146, 2015, 155-181.
Treu T., La digitalizzazione del lavoro: proposte europee e piste di ricerca, in Federalismi.it, n. 9, 2022,
190-211.
Valente L., Tra subordinazione e autonomia: la direttiva sui rider, lavoce.info, 15 dicembre 2021.
Vidiri G., Art. 2 del d.lgs. n. 81/2015 e lavoro autonomo: verso un diritto del lavoro a formazione
giurisprudenziale?, in Argomenti di diritto del lavoro, 1, 2015, 1216-1239.
Williams C. C., Horodnic I. A., Dependent Self-Employment. Theory, Practice and Policy, Elgar,
2019, 142-160.
Zampini G., La certificazione volontaria dei contratti di lavoro: La parabola di una riforma, in
Massimario di giurisprudenza del lavoro, 1, 2020, 217-238.
Zoppoli A., Le collaborazioni eterorganizzate tra antiche questioni, vincoli di sistema e potenzialità, in
Diritto delle Relazioni Industriali, 3, 2020, 703-748.




Copyright © 2022 Maria Giovannone. This article is released under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License




https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1561-8048/15224                                                                     83
