By the judgement No. 19206 of July 12, 2025, the Unified Sections of the Supreme Court clarified that a distribution agreement is not simply a series of sales transactions, but rather an atypical framework agreement defining the regulatory framework for the entire commercial relationship and whose clauses regulate all further relating negotiations, unless there are specific and explicit agreements to the contrary.

By decision No. 22082 of May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court, III penal Section, pointed out that "in the case of a small company, where there is complete identification between the personal interests of the natural person and the entity, there is a real risk of duplication of sanctions against the same subject".

By decision No. 26595 of July 21, 2025, the Supreme Court (criminal section) stated that in case of leasing of working equipment/machineries, with or without machine operator, the lessor cannot be considered liable for the injury involving the machine operator due to the working place conditions, having only the duty of warranting the functionality and safety of the equipment or machinery according to Article 23 of the Legislative Decree No. 81/2008.

On the basis of the judgement of the Veneto Administrative Regional Court No. 1428 of October 12, 2013, section IV, the necessity that the use of ordinance powers is well justified and anticipated by adequate investigations also applies to situations such as that of the presence of PFAS substances in the air, which is still characterised by a lack of evidence, scientific studies and ad hoc regulatory framework, since mere reference to the principle of precaution is not sufficient.

By judgement No. 23752 of August 23, 2025, the Supreme Court specified that, even if there is a clause requiring written form for amendments to the contract, substantial changes to the work, implicitly accepted by the client, may represent a new valid agreement proven by facta concludentia.

The Supreme Court, by judgement No. 20132 of July 17, 2025, stated that the right to a share of the severance pay, as provided for by art. 12-bis of the Law No. 898/1970, refers exclusively to the indemnity received upon termination of the employment relationship, while sums already paid out by the employer and transferred to a pension fund prior to the beginning of the divorce proceedings are not taken into account.

By decision No. 54 of January 1, 2025, the Administrative Tribunal of Basilicata Region stated three main principles concerning the identification of the subject liable for the pollution and the relevant burden of proof between the public authorities and the interested subject.

By decision No. 5765 of July 4, 2025, the State Council (VI Section) pointed out that in case of a polluted site for which two or more subjects are identified as polluters, the public authority is entitled to ask one of them for performing all the clean up and remediation works; the party who bore the full costs can ask the other liable parties for reimbursement in proportion to their contribution to the pollution.

By decision No. 27669 of July 28, 2025, the Supreme Court, III penal Section, pointed out that, in case of realization of unauthorised landfills (Article 256, para. 3, of the Legislative Decree 152/2006), the “advantage” relevant for the purposes of entity's liability under the Legislative Decree 231/2001 does not necessarily have to consist of a direct economic profit, but it may be represented by the savings achieved, for example, by avoiding waste disposal costs.

By the judgement No. 4892 of February 25, 2025, the Unified Sections of the Supreme Court stated the following principle of law: "Lessor's right to obtain, pursuant to art. 1223 of the Italian Civil Code, compensation for loss of earnings due to termination of the contract for breach by the lessee does not cease, by itself, following the return of the leased premises before the natural expiry of the agreement, but it normally requires the lessor to prove that, once the premises became available, she/he acted promptly to find a new lessee, without prejudice to judge's assessment of the circumstances of the specific case, also on the basis of the principle of good faith, and excluding in any case the applicability of art. 1591 of the Italian Civil Code".