Commentary on Judgment No. 16979 of 2024: Covid-19 Contributions and Undue Perception

The recent judgment No. 16979 of March 28, 2024, filed on April 23, 2024, addressed a highly relevant and current issue: the undue perception of public disbursements, particularly regarding the non-repayable economic contributions provided by the Italian State to individuals affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court of Cassation excluded the application of the aggravating circumstance relating to the financial interests of the European Union in this specific context, thereby providing an important legal clarification.

The Regulatory Context

The central issue of the judgment concerns the application of Article 316-ter of the Penal Code, which governs the crime of undue perception of public disbursements. In particular, the Court clarified that the aggravating circumstance of harming the financial interests of the European Union is not applicable to the contributions provided to support the victims of the pandemic. This approach is based on EU Directive No. 2017/1371, which requires a restrictive interpretation of the notion of “financial interests of the European Union.”

Analysis of the Judgment

Undue perception of public disbursements - Aggravating circumstance of harming the financial interests of the European Union - Economic contributions provided by the Italian State to individuals affected by the "Covid-19" pandemic - Application - Exclusion - Reasons. In terms of undue perception of public disbursements, the aggravating circumstance of harming the interests of the European Union under Article 316-ter, paragraph one, last sentence, of the Penal Code is not applicable in cases of undue perception of non-repayable economic contributions provided by the Italian State to individuals affected by the "Covid-19" pandemic under the so-called support decree (Law Decree No. 41 of March 22, 2021) and the so-called support bis decree (Law Decree No. 73 of May 25, 2021). (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the notion of "financial interests of the European Union" as per EU Directive No. 2017/1371 is to be interpreted narrowly and does not extend to the assets of Member States, even if relevant for Union policies).

The Court justified its decision by emphasizing that the contributions in question do not impact the assets of the European Union but are rather state support measures aimed at addressing an unprecedented health crisis. Therefore, the notion that the assets of Member States could be considered an integral part of the financial interests of the Union was excluded.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 16979 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the boundaries of the crime of undue perception of public disbursements, highlighting the need for a rigorous interpretation of European regulations in this area. This case provides a clear example of how jurisprudence can influence legal practice, especially in a period when support measures are crucial for economic recovery. It is therefore essential for legal practitioners to closely follow the evolution of legislation and case law in this field.

Bianucci Law Firm