Judgment No. 23257 of 2024: Solidarity Contribution and Legitimacy of Privatized Social Security Institutions

The recent order No. 23257 of August 28, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a highly relevant issue in the context of professional social security. Specifically, the judgment focuses on the legitimacy of imposing a solidarity contribution by privatized social security institutions, such as the National Social Security and Assistance Fund for Chartered Accountants (CNPADC).

The Regulatory and Legal Framework

The central issue concerns the possibility for privatized social security institutions to adopt measures that impose deductions on already determined benefits. In this case, the Court ruled that such acts cannot be adopted as they are incompatible with the "pro rata" principle and with the reservation of taxation for financial levies, as provided for by Article 23 of the Italian Constitution.

Solidarity contribution - Legitimacy - Exclusion - Basis. In matters of social security benefits, privatized social security institutions (in this case, the National Social Security and Assistance Fund for Chartered Accountants) cannot adopt, even for the purpose of ensuring budgetary balance and management stability, acts or measures that, far from affecting the criteria for determining pension benefits, impose a deduction (in this case, a solidarity contribution) on a benefit that has already been determined based on its applicable criteria. Such acts must be considered incompatible with the respect for the "pro rata" principle and constitute a levy classifiable under the "genus" of financial levies pursuant to Article 23 of the Constitution, the imposition of which is reserved to the legislator.

Implications of the Judgment

The judgment has significant repercussions for professionals registered with the CNPADC and, more generally, for all those belonging to privatized social security institutions. Indeed, the imposition of a solidarity contribution, while it may appear as a necessary measure to ensure budgetary balance, must necessarily comply with constitutional norms and the rights already acquired by beneficiaries.

• The Court emphasizes that any levy must be justified by law and cannot be unilaterally decided by social security institutions.
• As pension benefits are already determined based on specific criteria, they cannot be subject to further impositions without a solid legislative basis.
• This judgment reaffirms the principle of legality, thereby guaranteeing the protection of professionals' financial rights.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 23257 of 2024 represents an important victory for the rights of professionals and for the protection of social security. The Court of Cassation, with this order, reiterates that privatized social security institutions must operate in compliance with the law and cannot impose additional contributions without an adequate legislative foundation. This not only protects the rights of members but also contributes to ensuring the stability and fairness of the social security system.