ENG 
ITA 
Court of Cassation, Order No. 8567 of 16 March 2022 A genuine procurement contract is distinguished from the supply of labor by the organisation of the necessary means and the assumption of the risk by the contractor and may be compatible with the partial use of means owned by the principal. In the present case, the Court of Appeal - upholding the decision of the court of first instance - rejected the request of an employee of the contracting company to ascertain the simulation of the service contract - concerning the ordinary maintenance, cleaning and custody of the principal's sports facility - with the recognition of the existence of a subordinate employment relationship with the principal, or of coordinated and continuous collaboration and the restoration of the employment relationship. The Court of Appeal held that there was a hypothesis of assumption by the contractor of the business risk and that there was no case of supply, in light of the organisation of necessary means and of the assumption of risk by the contractor, despite the partial use, considered compatible with a genuine contract, of means owned by the principal. In particular, the Court of Appeal, in a decision upheld by the Court of Cassation, had ruled out the possibility of a non-genuine contract, investigating the overall conduct of the contractor which, according to the evidence, had not merely sent its own employees to the principal company to carry out any work, but had organised the commissioned activity with its own means and assumed the business risk. The court of second instance, as stated in the order in question, had pointed out “how in this regard it was not decisive in the opposite sense the use of equipment of the contractor as well as the use of its own employee unquestionably by him heterodirected, not being able to exclude that the ratio of this choice was to be attributed to the guarantee of the quality and characteristics of the service performed”. Not only that, but also the behaviour of the parties when entering into the contract, with the submission of a request for certification of the contract, further enhanced the genuineness of the contract. And so, continues the Court of Cassation “in ruling out any element of supply or quasi-subordination, and moreover of subordination, the Court also relied on the fact, which was common knowledge between the parties, that the contract was entered into with the assistance of their lawyers, pointing out that both parties - including the appellant who then challenged its nature - had applied for certification of the contract in question”. In that application for certification, the employee stated: “a) that the organization of the means necessary to carry out the contract was the responsibility of his company, b) that he would use an employee to carry out the contract, c) that he had the technical capacity to carry out the contracted work independently, carrying out that activity for several clients, d) that he had agreed on a fee which was independent of the hours of work required and the number of workers used, having complied with the legal obligations regarding health and safety at work regulations”. In light of the above, the Court of Cassation, noting that a different assessment would entail an inadmissible assessment of the merits, dismisses the case and confirms the judgment under appeal.