Author: Andrea Sticca - WH Partners Italy

In Judgment No. 11269 of 27 April 2026, the Italian Supreme Court clarified that, under the legal framework preceding the Dignity Decree, seasonal employment contracts were not subject to the maximum limit of five extensions established by the Jobs Act. The distinction between extensions and renewals, together with the special rules governing seasonal work, was central to the Court’s reasoning.

Fixed-term employment contracts continue to represent one of the most complex areas for those involved in workforce management. Against this background, Supreme Court Judgment No. 11269 of 27 April 2026 addresses an issue of considerable practical importance – whether the maximum limit of five extensions applies to seasonal employment contracts.

The judgment is particularly relevant for businesses operating in sectors characterised by recurring seasonal needs, including tourism, agriculture, the food industry and activities linked to seasonal production cycles. This is because it reshapes the scope of the risk that a fixed-term employment relationship may be converted into a permanent one.

Overturning the decision of the Milan Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court established a principle likely to affect employment-related litigation: under the legal framework in force before the amendments introduced by the Dignity Decree of 2018, seasonal employment relationships were not subject to the five-extension limit established by Article 21(1) of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015, known as the Jobs Act.

The Case: Seven Extensions and a Request for Conversion

The dispute concerned an employee who had been hired on a seasonal basis by a company operating in the tuna-processing sector, an activity expressly classified as seasonal under Presidential Decree No. 1525/1963.

Between 2015 and 2018, the parties entered into four seasonal fixed-term contracts, which were extended a total of seven times.

According to the Milan Court of Appeal, exceeding the five-extension limit under Article 21 of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015 automatically resulted in the conversion of the employment relationship into a permanent contract.

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning was based on an apparently straightforward argument: the legislature had expressly excluded seasonal work from the 36-month maximum duration limit and from the “stop-and-go” rules, but had not expressly provided for an exemption from the maximum number of extensions. On that basis, the lower court considered the general rules to be applicable.

The Supreme Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court began by examining the structure of Article 21(1) of Legislative Decree No. 81/2015. It observed that the rules governing extensions were based on the maximum duration of 36 months established under Article 19.

According to the Court, the reference to “thirty-six months” was not incidental. Rather, it defined the entire scope of application of the rules governing extensions.

This was the central interpretative issue in the judgment. Since seasonal work was already excluded at the outset from the maximum 36-month duration limit, it was also logically excluded from the related five-extension limit.

The Supreme Court therefore adopted a systematic interpretation of the legislation. It held that no further express exemption was required for seasonal work because this category already fell outside the scope of the general rules.

According to the Court, the opposite interpretation would have produced an unreasonable result. On the one hand, the legislation permitted unlimited renewals of seasonal employment contracts, including renewals without any interruption between contracts. On the other hand, it would have imposed a strict limit on extensions.

The Supreme Court considered such a contradiction incompatible with the overall logic of the legislative framework.

The Importance of the Seasonal Justification

The judgment is also important from another perspective.

The Court reiterated that seasonality constitutes a specific and independent justification which, in itself, may justify the repeated use of fixed-term employment contracts.

The reference to Directive 1999/70/EC and the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union is particularly significant. The Supreme Court noted that the “objective reasons” required under EU law may be satisfied by the seasonal nature of the activity itself.

From this perspective, seasonality is not treated as a marginal exception to the general framework, but as a genuine anti-abuse measure.

The Court also referred to established case law according to which the concept of seasonal activity must be interpreted strictly and must be limited to temporary activities specifically identified by legislation or collective bargaining agreements. In this regard, the judgment refers, among others, to Supreme Court Judgments No. 34561/2023 and No. 26199/2024.

This aspect has particular practical importance. Although the decision broadens the scope for using seasonal employment contracts, it does so only where the seasonal nature of the activity is genuine, concrete and consistent with the applicable legal framework.

The Court provides clear guidance: the central issue is not the number of extensions, but whether the seasonal justification is genuine.

Regulatory inspections and judicial scrutiny are therefore likely to continue focusing on:

  • whether the activity falls within recognised categories of seasonal work;
  • whether the employee’s duties are consistent with the temporary need;
  • whether there is a genuine connection between the recruitment and the seasonal production cycle; and
  • whether the fixed-term contract is being used to meet ordinary and permanent business needs.

The strength of an employer’s defence therefore shifts away from the number of extensions and towards its ability to demonstrate, consistently and through appropriate documentation, the genuinely seasonal nature of the activity.

The correct drafting of employment letters, the traceability of production requirements and the consistency of work assignments remain central factors when assessing whether the use of seasonal employment contracts is lawful.

The Significance of the Dignity Decree

The judgment concerns circumstances that arose before the amendments introduced by the Dignity Decree of 2018. However, the Supreme Court’s reference to the amended version of Article 21(1) is particularly noteworthy.

According to the Court, the 2018 legislative intervention itself confirmed that the original legal framework had been ambiguous. The legislature subsequently clarified that seasonal contracts may be extended and renewed even in the absence of the justifications required for other fixed-term contracts.

The judgment therefore supports an interpretation under which seasonal work is treated as structurally distinct from the ordinary rules governing fixed-term employment.

A Decision Likely to Affect Employment Litigation

Judgment No. 11269/2026 is likely to have practical consequences for both pending and future disputes.

Many claims based solely on a breach of the numerical limit on extensions may lose force, particularly in sectors where seasonal work is a normal feature of the organisation of production.

At the same time, the judgment does not permit the unrestricted use of seasonal contracts. The Supreme Court maintained an essential principle: the exemption applies only where the seasonal nature of the work is genuine and falls strictly within the categories recognised by law.

The decisive factor will therefore not be the number of extensions, but the employer’s ability to demonstrate that the seasonal contract is based on a genuine, coherent and objectively verifiable temporary need.