The Court of Cassation by decision no. 9471 affirmed the principle that the absence of the project in a cooperative relationship is not lifted if before it was affirmed the subordination.
In the current case, the employee had initially asked the court to recognize the subordination and later changed his strategy saying that there is a project on which is based the collaboration  (cd / mutatio libelli).
The court therefore held that the applicant can not introduce new issues during the proceedings and the judge makes violation of the principle of correspondence of the requested court if it concludes for the recognition of subordination.
This decision is based on the principles defined by the Biagi reform, in order to prevent improper use of the collaboration, art. 61 stated firmly that there is a project on the basis of the collaboration contract. In the regime of co.co.pro. they had been established a number of limitations to the parties, including the existence of the project, and the absolute prohibition of contracting collaborations without this condition.
Paragraph following was then stated that in the event that was entered into a partnership without the identification of a specific project, we had to talk about the employment relationship indefinitely. Based on this differentiation, this results in two different evidentiary burden borne by the worker in the first case must prove the constitutive element of continuity and coordination, in the second to give the existence of a subordinated relationship.
Based on the diversity of legal actions covered later by art. 69 of Legislative Decree no. 276, the court can not proceed with the conversion without violating the principle of correspondence between the requested and pronounced, or vice versa, can the party (that has brought the proceedings taking on the character of subordination) then deduce the non-existence of specificity of the project.
For all the reasons above, it is therefore considered that the introduction of new topics of investigation and decision alters the substantial object and the terms of the dispute.