Derogation of the agent's notice period.

Article 1750 of the Civil Code, as replaced by Article 3 of Legislative Decree No 303 of 10 September 1991 (implementing the Community Directive 86/653), states that:

"If the agency contract is a indefiniteeither party may terminate the contract by giving notice to the other within a fixed period of time (para. 2).
"The notice period may in no case be less than to one month for the first year of the contract, to two months for the second year commenced, to three months for the third year commenced, to four months for the fourth year, to five months for the fifth year and to six months for the sixth year and all subsequent years (para. 3).
"The parties may agree on longer notice periods, but the principal may not observe a shorter time limit to that imposed on the agent"(para. 4).

It should be recalled that the amendments made to Article 1750 of the Civil Code by Legislative Decree No 303 of 1991 were implemented in line with Community Directive No 653 of 1986, which expressly provided that:

1. If the agency agreement is concluded for an indefinite period, either party may terminate it by notice.
2. The notice period is one month for the first year of the agency agreement, two months for the second year commenced, three months for the third year commenced and for subsequent years. The parties may not agree on shorter terms.
3. Member States may fix the notice period at four months for the fourth year, five months for the fifth year and six months for the sixth and all subsequent years. They may provide that the parties may not agree on shorter periods.

The question has been raised as to whether the parties may derogate in part from the normative dictate of Article 1750 of the Civil Code.., reducing the notice periods set by the legislature. Specifically, it has been argued that the protection expressly provided for by the directives is referable only to the first three years and that therefore it would be permissible to argue that the term of notice mandatory by the parties would be referable only to the three months. If this theory were followed, the parties could partially derogate from Art. 1750 of the Civil Code and provide for a notice period of three months also for relationships lasting more than three years.

The Court of Cassation has ruled on this issue, rejecting this argument in its entiretyarguing that "in the matter of agency contracts of indefinite duration, the term of notice, pursuant to Article 1750 of the Civil Code (as replaced by Article 3 of Legislative Decree No 303 of 10 September 1991), cannot be less than one month for each year, or fraction thereof, of the duration of the contract up to a maximum of six months, since the Italian legislature - as permitted by Article 15 of EEC Council Directive No 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986, without prejudice to the mandatory protection for the first three years - has provided for increasing terms of four, five, and six months for the years following the third year. 15 of EEC Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986, without prejudice to the mandatory protection for the first three-year period, the Italian legislature - as allowed by Article 15 of the EEC Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986, without prejudice to the mandatory protection for the first three-year period - has provided, also for the years following the third year, increasing terms of four, five and six months (respectively for the fourth, fifth, sixth and subsequent years) which cannot be derogated by the parties." (Cass. Civ. No. 16487, 2014)

Therefore, according to the Court, the notice period in Art. 1750 of the Civil Code is not binding on the parties, or rather, the parties may only provide for terms that are longer, but not shorter, than those indicated in the code.

Lastly, I recall that failure to give notice entitles the agent to demand theallowance in lieu of notice.

 

by admin