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

The recent judgment No. 16979 of March 28, 2024, filed on April 23, 2024, addressed a highly topical and relevant issue: the undue receipt of public funds, particularly concerning non-repayable contributions disbursed by the Italian State to entities affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court of Cassation excluded the application of the aggravating circumstance related to the financial interests of the European Union in this specific context, thus providing important legal clarification.

Regulatory Context

The central issue of the judgment concerns the application of Article 316-ter of the Criminal Code, which governs the crime of undue receipt of public funds. In particular, the Court clarified that the aggravating circumstance of offense to the financial interests of the European Union is not applicable to contributions disbursed to support pandemic victims. 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 receipt of public funds - Aggravating circumstance of offense to the financial interests of the European Union - Economic contributions disbursed by the Italian State to entities affected by the "Covid 19" pandemic - Application - Exclusion - Reasons. Regarding undue receipt of public funds, the aggravating circumstance of offense to the interests of the European Union as per Article 316-ter, first paragraph, last sentence, of the Criminal Code, is not applicable in cases of undue receipt of non-repayable economic contributions disbursed by the Italian State to entities affected by the "Covid 19" pandemic under the so-called "Sostegni" decree (Decree-Law of March 22, 2021, No. 41) and the so-called "Sostegni bis" decree (Decree-Law of May 25, 2021, No. 73). (In its reasoning, the Court specified that the notion of "financial interests of the European Union" as per EU Directive No. 2017/1371 is subject to strict interpretation and does not extend to the assets of Member States, even if of interest to Union policies).

The Court motivated its decision by emphasizing that the contributions in question do not affect the financial sphere of the European Union but are rather state support measures intended to address an unprecedented health crisis. Therefore, the idea that the assets of Member States could be considered an integral part of the Union's financial interests was excluded.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment No. 16979 of 2024 represents an important step forward in defining the boundaries of the crime of undue receipt of public funds, highlighting the need for a rigorous interpretation of European regulations in this matter. This case offers 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 professionals to closely follow the evolution of legislation and jurisprudence in this area.