Analysis of Judgment No. 11659 of 2024: Repetition of Undue Payment and NASpI

Judgment No. 11659 of April 30, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, is part of an important legal debate regarding the methods of recovering sums that were unduly paid under the New Social Insurance Benefit for Employment (NASpI). In particular, the Court established that the repetition of undue payment should not follow the typical rules of pension or welfare undue payments, but should refer to Article 2033 of the Civil Code. This decision has significant implications for both NASpI beneficiaries and the competent administrations.

The Regulatory and Jurisprudential Context

The NASpI is a social benefit that supports unemployed workers. Unlike pensions, NASpI is considered a non-pension benefit. The Court emphasized that, in the case of undue payments, the sums paid must follow the general provisions set forth by the Civil Code, rather than the specific rules for pensions or assistance.

  • Application of Article 2033 of the Civil Code for the repetition of undue payments.
  • Need to consider the principles of gradualness and proportion in the recovery of sums.
  • Implications for the rights of NASpI beneficiaries.

Legal Maxim of the Judgment and Practical Implications

In general. The New Social Insurance Benefit for Employment (NASpI) is a non-pension social benefit, so the repetition of sums unduly paid under this title is not subject to the rules set for pension undue payments nor to those set for welfare undue payments, but to the general discipline provided by Article 2033 of the Civil Code, which must be applied taking into account the hermeneutic indications outlined by the Constitutional Court in judgment No. 8 of 2023, in such a way that the action of recovering the undue payment occurs according to the principles of gradualness and proportion, while not nullifying the right to repetition in its essential core.

This maxim highlights the importance of not nullifying the right to the repetition of sums unduly paid, while ensuring a recovery that respects the principles of gradualness and proportion. This means that administrations must proceed with caution and consider the specific circumstances of the case, avoiding excessive burdens on beneficiaries.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 11659 of 2024 represents an important reference point for the management of NASpI benefits and for the regulation of undue social security payments. The Court of Cassation, with its decision, has paved an important way to guarantee citizens' rights by establishing clear criteria for the recovery of sums unduly paid. It is essential that legal practitioners and the competent administrations align with these guidelines to ensure the proper application of the rules and the protection of beneficiaries' rights.

Bianucci Law Firm