On the subject of the termination of the employment relationship, Article 2119 of the Civil Code provides that "either party may terminate the contract before the end of the term, if the contract is a fixed-term contract, or without notice, if the contract is of indefinite duration, if a cause arises that does not permit the continuation, even temporarily, of the relationship.”

Case law, now rather uniformly, considers Article 2119 of the Civil Code is applicable by analogy. also to the agency relationship. Therefore, also in this context, the obligation of the terminator of an open-ended contract to give notice does not exist if there is a (just) cause that does not permit the continuation of the relationship, even temporarily (Cass. Civ. 14.2.2011 no. 3595).

Moreover, according to case law and authoritative doctrine, in such cases the principal's obligation to pay the agent would cease to exist. indemnity in lieu of notice which was not given, given the termination of the relationship for reasons attributable to the agent himself.

Given that the analogical applicability of Art. 2119 para. 1 of the Civil Code to the agency relationship is rather unquestionable, the question arises as to when a just cause for termination of the contract can be said to exist for the principal.

The Supreme Court of Cassation has ruled on this issue stating that '.the institution of termination for just cause, provided for by Article 2119, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code in relation to the employment contract, is also applicable to the agency contract, taking into account, however, for the assessment of the seriousness of the conduct, that in the latter context the relationship of trust - in correspondence with the greater autonomy of management of the activity in terms of places, times, methods and means, in accordance with the achievement of the company's purposes - assumes greater intensity compared to the employment relationship. It follows that, for the purposes of the lawfulness of the termination, a fact of minor importance is sufficient, according to an assessment entrusted to the judge of the merits which cannot be challenged in a court of law, if adequately and correctly motivated. (In the present case, the Court held that the existence of just cause for the agent's termination had been correctly established, due to the non-payment of commissions relating to a specific order, received directly from the principal, but from third parties falling within the agent's exclusive area and which the latter had previously acquired as customers)." (Cass. Civ. 5.11.2013 no. 24776).