Analysis of Judgment No. 1864 of 2025: The Conditions for the Intervention of the T.F.R. Guarantee Fund

The recent judgment No. 1864 of January 27, 2025, issued by the Court of Appeal of Milan, provides important clarifications regarding the intervention of the INPS Guarantee Fund for the payment of the Severance Pay (T.F.R.) in the event of employer insolvency. This issue is fundamentally important for workers, especially when the employer is not subject to bankruptcy and the company has been removed from the business register.

The Context of the Judgment

According to the judgment, the intervention of the Guarantee Fund requires a judicial ascertainment of the existence and the amount of the credit before being able to request support from the Fund. This aspect is crucial, as it establishes that even when the employer has not gone bankrupt, a formal ascertainment of the credit is necessary.

Employer insolvency - Intervention of the T.F.R. Guarantee Fund - Requirements - Employer not subject to bankruptcy - Judicial ascertainment of the credit - Necessity - Company removed from the business register - Ascertainment against the partners - Collection of amounts based on the final liquidation balance - Irrelevance. The intervention of the INPS Guarantee Fund for the non-payment of the T.F.R. presupposes, even when the employer is not subject to bankruptcy, the prior judicial ascertainment of the existence and amount of the credit before the request for intervention, so that, if the employer is a company removed from the business register, such ascertainment can be made against the partners, as successors of the same and therefore endowed with passive legitimacy, regardless of the actual collection of amounts based on the liquidation balance of the company.

The Requirements for the Intervention of the Guarantee Fund

The judgment emphasizes that the requirements for accessing the intervention of the INPS Guarantee Fund are precisely defined. Here are the key points:

  • Need for a judicial ascertainment of the existence and amount of the credit.
  • Possibility of conducting such ascertainment against the partners of a company removed from the business register.
  • The partners are considered successors and, therefore, passively legitimized.

These requirements highlight the importance of a correct legal procedure to ensure workers' rights, even when facing employer insolvency situations.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 1864 of 2025 represents an important milestone in the protection of workers' rights in insolvency situations. It clarifies that, even in the absence of employer bankruptcy, a judicial ascertainment of the credit is essential to access the Guarantee Fund. This judgment not only offers clear guidance for workers but also establishes the rights and duties of partners in the event of the company’s removal from the business register. It is essential that workers are informed about these procedures to effectively protect their rights.

Bianucci Law Firm