Citizen's Income and Precautionary Measures: The Court of Cassation Clarifies Omitted Communication (Judgment no. 19873/2025)

The Italian legal landscape is constantly evolving, and rulings by the Court of Cassation represent milestones that define the interpretation and application of laws. Recently, a judgment by the Supreme Court has shed light on a crucial aspect concerning the Citizen's Income (RdC) and the criminal liabilities associated with beneficiaries' declarations. Judgment no. 19873, filed on May 28, 2025, annulled without referral a decision by the Court of Appeal of Rome, offering a significant interpretation regarding the omission of communication of personal precautionary measures by individuals receiving the benefit.

The Regulatory Framework and the Legal Issue

The Citizen's Income, introduced by Decree-Law no. 4 of 2019, converted with amendments by Law no. 26 of 2019, represented a measure of economic support and social inclusion. However, its disbursement has always been subject to compliance with specific requirements and the obligation to provide truthful and complete declarations. Article 7 of the same decree establishes criminal penalties for those who make false declarations or omit information that is due and relevant for maintaining the benefit.

The issue at the heart of the debate, and resolved by the Court of Cassation, concerned the application of Article 7-ter, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law no. 4/2019. This provision provides for the automatic suspension of the RdC if a personal precautionary measure is applied to the beneficiary. The interpretative doubt was whether the beneficiary's omission to communicate such a measure could constitute the crime of false declarations, pursuant to the aforementioned Article 7, and thus entail criminal consequences.

The Decisive Ruling of the Court of Cassation: No Crime for Omitted Communication

With judgment no. 19873/2025, the Supreme Court provided a clear and definitive answer. The Judges, presided over by D. N. V. and with reporter and rapporteur A. A. M., annulled the decision of the Court of Appeal of Rome which had deemed the conduct of the defendant D. S. F. S. criminally relevant. The expressed orientation is of fundamental importance for all beneficiaries and for the application of criminal law concerning crimes against public faith and ideological falsehood.

In the matter of false declarations aimed at obtaining the citizen's income, the provision of art. 7-ter, paragraph 1, of decree-law of January 28, 2019, no. 4, converted, with amendments, by law of March 28, 2019, no. 26, by establishing the automatic suspension of the benefit in the event of the application of a personal precautionary measure against the beneficiary, explicitly excludes that the omission to communicate this circumstance by the latter constitutes criminally relevant conduct pursuant to art. 7 of the aforementioned decree-law, as the lack of such communication cannot be classified among the "information due and relevant for the revocation or reduction of the benefit".

The maxim of the Court of Cassation is peremptory: Article 7-ter, by providing for the automatic suspension of the benefit in the case of a precautionary measure, makes communication by the beneficiary superfluous for the commission of the crime. In other words, if the law already provides for an automatic suspension mechanism, the information relating to the precautionary measure no longer falls among those "due and relevant for the revocation or reduction of the benefit" whose omission could constitute a crime under Article 7. This interpretation is based on the principle of strict legality and the need to avoid an analogical extension unfavorable to the defendant in criminal matters.

This means that the rule has been interpreted to mean that the legislator, having already provided for an automatic consequence (suspension), did not intend to criminally sanction the omission to communicate a circumstance that, in fact, does not require an active declaration from the beneficiary to produce its effects on the subsidy. Criminal liability, in fact, cannot arise from the failure to report an event that the legal system already manages autonomously through an ex officio suspension mechanism.

• Principle of legality: The conduct must be expressly provided for as a crime.
• Restrictive interpretation: Criminal laws cannot be extended beyond their literal meaning to the detriment of the defendant.
• Automatic suspension: Art. 7-ter ensures that the benefit is interrupted without the need for active communication from the beneficiary.

Conclusions: A Crucial Clarification for Legal Certainty

Judgment no. 19873/2025 of the Court of Cassation represents a fundamental clarification in a sensitive area such as false declarations and the Citizen's Income. It reiterates the importance of the principle of strict legality in criminal matters, preventing conduct not explicitly sanctioned by law from being equated with crimes. For RdC beneficiaries, this ruling offers greater legal certainty, precisely delineating the boundaries of their criminal responsibilities. For legal professionals, the judgment underscores the need for careful analysis of the regulatory framework, favoring an interpretation that respects individual guarantees and the specificity of criminal offenses. It is a reminder not to extend the scope of criminal relevance beyond measure, especially when the law itself already provides for automatic mechanisms for managing critical situations.