Court Rules INPS Overreached in Pension Recovery Demand After Sporadic TV Work

Livorno,Italy – A 67-year-old pensioner has successfully challenged a demand⁤ from the National Social Security Institute‌ (INPS) to repay ‌over 20,000 euros in‌ pension benefits after earning income from a brief appearance in a television series. The ruling, delivered by judge ⁢federica Manfrè, establishes ‍a crucial precedent regarding the compatibility of limited, occasional work wiht pension entitlements.

The⁤ case centers on the principle of pension and income accumulation, a long-standing issue for Italian retirees. INPS initially argued that the pensioner’s earnings from a fixed-term contract for work on the Palomar television series on June 1st ‍and 21st, 2023, ‍invalidated his⁢ pension for the entirety of 2023 and the ⁢first two months of 2024, triggering the demand for repayment.‌ This decision has broad​ implications for pensioners engaging in sporadic or part-time work, and the court’s judgment clarifies the boundaries of ⁢permissible​ income‌ without forfeiting benefits. The ruling‍ is expected to prompt a review‌ of similar cases and‌ potentially alter INPS’s approach to enforcing accumulation restrictions.

The⁣ pensioner initially appealed INPS’s decision internally, but ⁤the Institute ‍upheld ​its demand.He then turned to the courts, arguing ‍the recovery request ⁤was disproportionate ⁤given the short-term nature of the work. Judge⁤ Manfrè agreed, ‍stating in the sentence that the ‌INPS’s interpretation of the law was overly​ broad. “it is indeed ‍documented ⁤that​ the applicant has worked on palomar by a fixed-term⁤ contract on‍ the days of the first and 21 June 2023,” the ruling reads.”It ⁤is⁣ therefore evident that the limited income received as‌ a result of this report were not compatible⁢ with⁣ the pension treatment and, due to this incumulability, the ‍INPS has remedied the pension treatment gained for 2023 and for the first two months of 2024.”

The court found ⁢that the prohibition against accumulating pension benefits and work ⁤income should apply only to the specific months in which income is earned, nonetheless of the amount, rather than triggering a full-year‌ forfeiture. The judge rejected⁢ INPS’s alternative ‌interpretation, which would have limited‌ recovery to the difference between pension payments and work income, ⁢arguing it would diminish the ​literal meaning of the regulation.”On the other hand, the different interpretative option does not seem to be shared…in the event, such as that of species, in ⁣which for example the amount of work income was less⁢ than that deriving from the pension treatment, making it effectively cumulative,​ for the difference, the pension⁢ with the remuneration,” the sentence states.

The court also emphasized that the intent behind the accumulation rule is to encourage pensioners to fully ‍exit the⁤ labor market and create opportunities for younger workers. though, the judge resolute that the pensioner’s “completely sporadic activity”‍ – ​a brief role in a television series – did not contradict this goal. “The ⁢particularity of the completely sporadic activity carried out…does not even allow you to believe‍ that the applicant has not actually left the labor market and the contrast is not recognized with the solidarity purpose of the benefit,” the ruling‌ explained.

Marco Guercio, the pensioner’s lawyer, ⁢praised ⁣the court’s decision⁤ as a “correct interpretation” of the law.”In the appeal – he underlines -⁢ I introduced an element of novelty, proposing an interpretation that​ would go into contrast with ​a sentence of the Cassation that ‍would otherwise have given reason to the INPS. I am‍ satisfied ‌that the Court went in the direction hoped for us.”