DAL «JOBS ACT» AL «DECRETO DIGNITÀ»: OSSERVAZIONI CRITICHE SULLA PROROGA DEL CONTRATTO A TERMINE

Risultato della ricerca: Article

Abstract

The article analyses the extension of the term in the fixed-term contract in the framework of Legislative Decree n. 81/2015, both before and after the changes enacted by the l. n. 96/2018 (so-called Decreto Dignità, Dignity Decree). It lacks a specific rule concerning the form that the extension’s agreement has to have. Therefore, the author outlines the reasons why the written is required for the validity of such a deal. Moreover, this, especially in the cases where the term’s extension does not require a justification. That conclusion comes from a systematic interpretation of the rules established by the articles 21 ff., of the Legislative Decree no. 81/2015. Consequently, because the written-form is a measure to protect the weakest part against the risk of the abuse deriving from the repetition of the fixed-term contracts, it ought to be mandatory at least in compliance with the requirement of the effectiveness of the anti-abuse measures required by EU law.
Lingua originaleItalian
Numero di pagine26
RivistaTEMILAVORO.IT SINOSSI INTERNET DI DIRITTO DEL LAVORO E DELLA SICUREZZA SOCIALE
Stato di pubblicazionePublished - 2019

Cita questo

@article{2da094be73df46c69c92654e088381e5,
title = "DAL «JOBS ACT» AL «DECRETO DIGNIT{\`A}»: OSSERVAZIONI CRITICHE SULLA PROROGA DEL CONTRATTO A TERMINE",
abstract = "The article analyses the extension of the term in the fixed-term contract in the framework of Legislative Decree n. 81/2015, both before and after the changes enacted by the l. n. 96/2018 (so-called Decreto Dignit{\`a}, Dignity Decree). It lacks a specific rule concerning the form that the extension’s agreement has to have. Therefore, the author outlines the reasons why the written is required for the validity of such a deal. Moreover, this, especially in the cases where the term’s extension does not require a justification. That conclusion comes from a systematic interpretation of the rules established by the articles 21 ff., of the Legislative Decree no. 81/2015. Consequently, because the written-form is a measure to protect the weakest part against the risk of the abuse deriving from the repetition of the fixed-term contracts, it ought to be mandatory at least in compliance with the requirement of the effectiveness of the anti-abuse measures required by EU law.",
author = "Alessandro Riccobono",
year = "2019",
language = "Italian",
journal = "TEMILAVORO.IT SINOSSI INTERNET DI DIRITTO DEL LAVORO E DELLA SICUREZZA SOCIALE",
issn = "1826-9028",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - DAL «JOBS ACT» AL «DECRETO DIGNITÀ»: OSSERVAZIONI CRITICHE SULLA PROROGA DEL CONTRATTO A TERMINE

AU - Riccobono, Alessandro

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - The article analyses the extension of the term in the fixed-term contract in the framework of Legislative Decree n. 81/2015, both before and after the changes enacted by the l. n. 96/2018 (so-called Decreto Dignità, Dignity Decree). It lacks a specific rule concerning the form that the extension’s agreement has to have. Therefore, the author outlines the reasons why the written is required for the validity of such a deal. Moreover, this, especially in the cases where the term’s extension does not require a justification. That conclusion comes from a systematic interpretation of the rules established by the articles 21 ff., of the Legislative Decree no. 81/2015. Consequently, because the written-form is a measure to protect the weakest part against the risk of the abuse deriving from the repetition of the fixed-term contracts, it ought to be mandatory at least in compliance with the requirement of the effectiveness of the anti-abuse measures required by EU law.

AB - The article analyses the extension of the term in the fixed-term contract in the framework of Legislative Decree n. 81/2015, both before and after the changes enacted by the l. n. 96/2018 (so-called Decreto Dignità, Dignity Decree). It lacks a specific rule concerning the form that the extension’s agreement has to have. Therefore, the author outlines the reasons why the written is required for the validity of such a deal. Moreover, this, especially in the cases where the term’s extension does not require a justification. That conclusion comes from a systematic interpretation of the rules established by the articles 21 ff., of the Legislative Decree no. 81/2015. Consequently, because the written-form is a measure to protect the weakest part against the risk of the abuse deriving from the repetition of the fixed-term contracts, it ought to be mandatory at least in compliance with the requirement of the effectiveness of the anti-abuse measures required by EU law.

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10447/387707

M3 - Article

JO - TEMILAVORO.IT SINOSSI INTERNET DI DIRITTO DEL LAVORO E DELLA SICUREZZA SOCIALE

JF - TEMILAVORO.IT SINOSSI INTERNET DI DIRITTO DEL LAVORO E DELLA SICUREZZA SOCIALE

SN - 1826-9028

ER -