Italy

On 1 June 2026, Legislative Decree No. 96 of 7 May 2026 was published in the Official Gazette No. 125 (General Series), concerning the “Implementation of Directive (EU) 2023/970 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 May 2023, aimed at strengthening the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women for the same work or for work of equal value through pay transparency and the related enforcement mechanisms’, which came into force on 7 June 2026. The decree, adopted in implementation of the 2022–2023 European Delegated Act (Law No. 15/2024), introduces into Italian law a comprehensive system of pay transparency obligations applicable to public and private employers, structured around four main pillars. 1. Pre-recruitment transparency (Article 5) Employers are required to state in job advertisements and recruitment notices the starting salary or the relevant salary band for the position offered. It is expressly prohibited to ask candidates for information on salaries received in previous or current employment relationships, either directly or through persons delegated to carry out the recruitment process. 2. Transparency regarding pay criteria (Articles 6–8) Employers must make the criteria used to determine pay and pay levels accessible to employees. For employers who apply a national collective labour agreement (CCNL) concluded by trade unions that are comparatively more representative, this obligation is deemed to have been fulfilled by reference to the contractual criteria. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are exempt from the obligation relating to progression criteria. Furthermore, every employee has the right to disclose their pay, and any contractual clauses restricting this right are prohibited. 3. Reporting on the gender pay gap (Article 9) The obligation to collect and report data on the pay gap applies to employers with at least 100 employees, with a phased transitional regime based on company size: employers with at least 250 employees: first collection by 7 June 2027, to be carried out annually; employers with 150–249 employees: first collection by 7 June 2027, to be carried out every three years; employers with 100–149 employees: first collection by 7 June 2031, to be carried out every three years. The data to be reported include the average and median gender pay gaps (overall and for variable pay components), the distribution of employees by pay quartile, and the pay gap by employee category. 4. Joint assessment of pay (Article 10) Where the data reveal a difference in the average pay level between female and male workers of 5 per cent or more in any category, not justified by objective criteria, and the employer has not rectified this difference within six months of the report, it is mandatory to initiate a joint assessment with workers’ representatives, analysing the causes, defining corrective measures and submitting the results to the Labour Inspectorate. Penalties and legal protection (Articles 12–13) Violations are penalised in accordance with the Equal Opportunities Code (Legislative Decree No. 198/2006), with the possibility of withdrawal of public benefits and exclusion from public procurement contracts, as well as protection against retaliation. Legal proceedings may also be brought by trade unions and associations whose statutory aims include the promotion of gender equality. Operational guidance for businesses The decree requires a review of recruitment processes, an update to information on pay criteria and the implementation of systems to analyse the pay gap, all in compliance with data protection legislation (Article 11). Companies with more than 150 employees have until 7 June 2027 to carry out their first data collection; however, it is advisable to begin mapping employee categories and reviewing their pay classification systems immediately.   Edited by the Labour and Risk, Compliance & Sustainability Teams  

Agent-based AI systems, capable of planning autonomously, using external tools and executing sequences of actions with minimal human intervention, raise two important legal questions. The first concerns their classification under Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (‘AI Act’), whilst the second concerns the liability regime for damages arising therefrom. Both issues are addressed by the two recent draft legislative decrees implementing Law No. 132 of 23 September 2025, which were approved at a preliminary reading by the Council of Ministers on 10 June 2026. The classification of the agent as an AI system under the AI Act The AI Act does not define the agent and regulates only the ‘AI system’ referred to in Article 3(1). It is therefore important to consider whether the agent constitutes an autonomous and distinct AI system, and as such is subject to the obligations of the Regulation. The Commission’s Guidelines of 6 February 2025 provide guidance on the scope of this concept; whilst not binding – and subject to the binding interpretation of the Court of Justice – they break down the definition into seven constituent elements and require a non-mechanical assessment, conducted on a case-by-case basis, of the architecture and function of the individual system. In light of these criteria, the answer is often in the affirmative, since the agent generally presents itself as an automated system with variable autonomy, capable of adapting after deployment and of generating outputs that affect physical or virtual environments, to which are added planning, the invocation of tools via APIs, unsupervised execution and adaptation based on feedback. The recent delegated decrees implementing Law 132/2025 Of the two implementing decrees for Law 132/2025, only the preliminary approval and accompanying information are currently known; the text of the decrees is not yet available, as it may change following parliamentary opinions and the second reading in the Council of Ministers. The two draft decrees bring the legal framework into line with Regulation (EU) 2024/1689. The first defines the governance structure. AgID acts as the notifying authority and ACN as the market supervisory authority and single point of contact pursuant to Article 70, without prejudice to the sector-specific competences of the Bank of Italy, CONSOB and IVASS, and the Data Protection Authority’s competence regarding high-risk systems under Article 74. Penalties are in line with Article 99 of the Regulation, up to €35 million or 7 per cent of annual global turnover for prohibited practices, with mitigating factors for SMEs and start-ups. A regulatory sandbox is provided for under Articles 57 et seq. In the field of employment, employers are prohibited from making decisions based solely on automated processing in relation to recruitment, disciplinary measures and termination; human oversight is required, and any dismissal carried out in breach of this provision is deemed null and void. The second framework regulates the use of AI in policing and introduces provisions on civil and criminal liability. The civil liability regime In civil matters, measures are provided to shift the burden of proof in favour of the injured party. These include access to the system’s technical documentation, a relative presumption of causation linked to a breach of the obligations set out in the AI Act, the right of a natural person who is the injured party to bring proceedings before the court of their place of residence, and the right to bring a direct action against the insurer of the liable party. A comparison with the Proposal for a Directive on AI Liability, AILD COM(2022)496, is interesting. That proposal harmonised non-contractual civil liability based on fault, with disclosure of evidence (Article 3) and a presumption of causality subject to a breach of a duty of care (Article 4), and was listed for withdrawal in the 2025 Work Programme and formally withdrawn by the Commission via a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 6 October 2025. The decree adopts its presumptive framework and disclosure mechanisms but diverges from it in three respects. It extends the framework to criminal liability and the liability of legal persons, which are outside the scope of the AILD. It anchors the presumption not to fault but to a breach of the compliance rules of the AI Act, in line with the objective logic of Directive (EU) 2024/2853 on product liability, to be transposed by 9 December 2026, to which it intended to link the framework. It adds non-harmonised domestic procedural remedies such as the right of the injured party (a natural person) to bring proceedings in their own jurisdiction and direct action against the insurer.     Edited by: Alessandro Manca and Edoardo Lombardo Siviero  

In a notice dated 15 May 2026, the Customs and Monopolies Agency provided operational guidance ahead of the introduction of the new flat-rate duty on low-value consignments. Abolition of the duty-free allowance and transitional duty Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2026/382, with effect from 1 July 2026, the exemption from import duties for consignments with an intrinsic value not exceeding 150 euros sent directly from a third country to a person located in the EU will be abolished. From the same date until 1 July 2028, such consignments will be subject to a flat-rate duty of 3 euros per item, regardless of the tariff classification of the imported goods, whether the goods are declared under fields H1, H6 or H7, and the VAT collection regime used (IOSS, special scheme or standard VAT).   The measure — aimed at strengthening controls on low-value consignments, combating fraud and ensuring a more level playing field for EU economic operators — is intended to apply pending the introduction of the EU Customs Data Hub, scheduled to come into effect on 1 July 2028. From that date, in fact, all goods sold via e-commerce will be subject to customs duty in the usual manner, i.e. at the rate corresponding to their specific customs classification.   Amendments to the Delegated and Implementing Regulations The application of the new provisions has necessitated amendments to certain provisions of Delegated Regulation (EU) No 2015/2446 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2015/2447 concerning procedures and declaration formats. Pending the publication of the relevant EU acts, the ADM hereby highlights the following areas for action: additions to TARIC for the H7 and H1 declaration formats; adjustment of the guarantee for operators holding a deferred payment authorisation (DPO); applications for DPO authorisation for operators who do not currently hold such authorisation; methods for accounting for specific customs duties.   The ADM has also pointed out that the new duty constitutes a customs duty (tax type A00) and is therefore subject to VAT.       Changes to declarations With regard to procedural codes, the ADM has announced the removal of the ‘Additional Regime’ code C07, currently used to certify customs duty exemption for low-value consignments. Codes F48 (IOSS) and F49 (special procedure) will continue to be used, as appropriate, whilst the new code F53 will be introduced for transactions of this kind subject to standard VAT.   Product Identifiers Finally, the ADM notes that new requirements relating to product identifiers will be phased in, becoming mandatory from 1 November 2026, with the aim of strengthening risk analysis and controls on goods traded via e-commerce.     Edited by: VAT & Customs Team

With regard to dismissal for exceeding the statutory sick leave period, the employer’s prolonged inaction following the employee’s return to work may constitute a tacit waiver of its right to terminate the employment contract, with the consequence that previous absences, for which the decision not to dismiss has already been made, cannot subsequently be “recovered” by adding them to the calculation of the statutory sick leave period for the purposes of dismissal. This was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, in ruling no. 7975 of 31 March 2026, in relation to a case in which a female employee had been dismissed for exceeding sick leave limit, calculated in instalments, as set out in the applicable National Collective Bargaining Agreement (NCBA) and amounting to “120 days over the three-year period preceding the most recent illness.” In particular, the employee had exceeded the aforementioned limit between June and August 2019, accruing 134 days of sick leave; nevertheless, after returning to work and before the notice of dismissal was served, the employment relationship – albeit punctuated by short periods of absence – had continued for over a year. Hence the unlawfulness of the dismissal challenged by the employee, as the employer’s inaction following the exceeding of the statutory sick leave period had generated in the employee “a reasonable and blameless expectation that the employment relationship would continue.” The Court of Appeal of Catanzaro, overturning the first-instance decision, had upheld this approach, ordering the company to reinstate the employee and to pay her compensation amounting to twelve months’ salary. In particular, the Court of Appeal – referring to the case law of the Supreme Court according to which, from the date of the employee’s return to work, any prolonged inaction on the part of the employer may be “objectively indicative of a willingness to waive the power to dismiss” — had held that the period elapsed since the employee’s return to work was sufficient to establish a tacit waiver of the power to dismiss on objective grounds. The employer therefore appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, complaining of an alleged misinterpretation by the Courts of merit of the contractual clause regarding fractioned sick leave and arguing that the subsequent periods of illness should have resulted in a “postponement” of the reference period, thereby allowing for a reassessment of previous absences as well. In rejecting the claim, the Supreme Court confirmed the correctness of the calculation method adopted by the Court of Appeal and reaffirmed the principle that, once an employee returns to work and the employer allows the employment relationship to continue for a significant period of time without terminating it, such inaction may be interpreted unequivocally as a waiver of the power to dismiss, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the employee on continuation of employment. The scope of such a waiver – the Supreme Court clarified – is, however, limited to the specific absences already “tolerated” and which led to the exceeding of the permitted absence limit, with the consequence that the employer’s power to dismiss in the event of new and further absences remains unaffected. Thus, the Supreme Court, confirming a principle already established, issues, on the one hand, a clear warning to employers, which risk automatically waiving the right to dismiss in the event of the absence limit being exceeded if they do not act promptly; on the other hand, it strengthens the protection of the employee, recognizing the full legal validity of their reliance on the continuity of the employment relationship. Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-House Counsel With regard to dismissal for exceeding the statutory sick leave period, the employer’s prolonged failure to cease the employment relationship following the employee’s return to work may constitute a tacit waiver of the right to terminate the employment contract. In the light of the above, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that, once an employee returns to work and the employer allows the employment relationship to continue for a significant period of time without terminating it, such inaction may be interpreted unequivocally as a waiver of the power to dismiss, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the employee on the continuity of employment.