In judgment no. 5678/2025, the Milan Court of Appeal held that a conciliation conducted through trade union channels may benefit from the favourable treatment provided for in Article 2113(4) of the Italian Civil Code (which precludes any challenge to the settlement agreement if it takes place in so-called ‘protected forums’) only if conducted in the forums and in accordance with the procedures explicitly provided for in the applicable collective bargaining agreement (CCNL). This is because, the Court explains, Article 412-ter of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure provides that “conciliation and arbitration, in the matters referred to in Article 409, may also be conducted at the venues and in the manner provided for by collective agreements signed by the most representative trade unions”.
In the present case, concerning an employment relationship in the freight transport sector, the conciliation report had been signed in the presence of a trade union representative and had been challenged by the worker within the following six months. Since the applicable collective agreement did not regulate conciliation at trade union level, the Milan Court ruled that the agreement could not benefit from the regime of non-challengeability provided for in Article 2113 of the Italian Civil Code, declaring the agreement ineffective.
According to the Court, the provision of Article 412-ter of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure does not constitute a mere formal requirement but a constituent element of the specific case of trade union conciliation, aimed at ensuring that the employee’s will is expressed genuinely and without coercion. From this perspective, only conciliations conducted in accordance with the procedures and venues expressly identified in collective agreements would be eligible to escape the ordinary regime of contestability; it follows that, in the absence of collective provisions governing conciliation through trade union channels, the settlement agreement concluded therein remains contestable within a six-month period.
Such an interpretation, however, appears questionable.
The fourth paragraph of Article 2113 of the Italian Civil Code refers to a variety of conciliation procedures (Articles 185, 410, 411, 412-ter and 412-quater of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure) for which there is an exception to the challenge regime established in the first three paragraphs.
In particular, Article 411(3) of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure provides for the possibility that the conciliation referred to in Article 410 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure may take place “through trade union channels”, without making its validity contingent upon the existence of a collective agreement. Conversely, Article 412-ter of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure provides that conciliation may “also” be conducted at the venues and in accordance with the procedures established by collective agreements: a provision that appears to outline a further and separate case, not overlapping with that referred to in Article 411.
From this perspective, the solution adopted by the Court appears to extend the model set out in Article 412-ter to all trade union-mediated settlements, thereby effectively treating as equivalent institutions that the Italian Code of Civil Procedure has kept distinct. This results in a restrictive interpretation of Article 2113 of the Italian Civil Code which, whilst inspired by the aim of protecting workers, risks introducing a requirement not expressly provided for by the legal system and significantly affecting the practice of trade union conciliations.
[Image by Pedro Sanz on Unsplash.]
