Maxi-Sanction for Irregular Employment: The Court of Cassation Clarifies the Competence of the Revenue Agency with Order No. 17549/2025

The phenomenon of irregular employment, or "undeclared work," represents a persistent scourge for the Italian economic and social system, undermining fair competition and depriving workers of fundamental protections. To combat it, the legislator has introduced increasingly incisive tools, including the so-called "maxi-sanction." However, the application of these measures is not always without complexity, especially regarding the identification of the competent authority for imposing sanctions. In this context, the intervention of the Court of Cassation is often crucial to provide clarity and legal certainty. A prime example is Order No. 17549 of June 30, 2025, which rules precisely on a matter of competence.

The Fight Against Irregular Employment and the Birth of the Maxi-Sanction

The maxi-sanction for irregular employment was introduced in Italy by Legislative Decree No. 223 of 2006, converted with amendments by Law No. 248 of 2006, and specifically by Article 36-bis, paragraph 7-bis. The objective was clear: to strongly discourage the employment of undocumented workers, by imposing particularly high pecuniary administrative sanctions on employers who failed to comply with hiring and notification obligations. Over the years, the legislation has undergone some amendments, such as those made by Law No. 183 of 2010, which sought to refine the sanctioning system and make it more effective.

The Cassation Ruling: Clarifications on the Competence of the Revenue Agency

One of the most delicate interpretative issues concerned the competence to adopt sanctioning measures. Who is the legitimate body to impose the maxi-sanction? The Court of Cassation, with Order No. 17549 of June 30, 2025, in the proceedings between T. C. and the Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, offered a decisive interpretation, quashing with referral a previous decision of the Court of Appeal of Brescia of June 4, 2019. The Judges, presided over by Dr. P. F. and with Dr. A. V. as rapporteur and author, reiterated and clarified the temporal boundaries of the Revenue Agency's competence. Here is the full summary:

In the matter of the so-called maxi-sanction for irregular employment, in application of Article 36-bis, paragraph 7-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 223 of 2006, in its original wording and as amended by Law No. 183 of 2010, the competence of the Revenue Agency for the adoption of administrative sanctioning measures concerning undeclared work remains valid until November 9, 2010, in relation to "violations ascertained" before August 12, 2006, and, from November 9, 2010, in relation to "violations committed" before August 12, 2006.

This ruling is of fundamental importance because it precisely defines the time frame within which the Revenue Agency holds competence. The Supreme Court distinguishes two key periods, influenced by legislative amendments: on one hand, violations "ascertained" before August 12, 2006, for which the Agency's competence extends until November 9, 2010; on the other hand, violations "committed" before August 12, 2006, for which the Agency's competence applies from November 9, 2010. This distinction between "violations ascertained" and "violations committed" is crucial and often a source of uncertainty. In summary, the Court of Cassation establishes that:

• For violations ascertained before August 12, 2006, the Revenue Agency's competence is valid until November 9, 2010.
• For violations committed before August 12, 2006, the Revenue Agency's competence is valid from November 9, 2010.

This clarification is essential to avoid litigation related to procedural issues and to ensure that sanctions are imposed by the body correctly identified by law.

Practical Implications for Businesses and Professionals

Order No. 17549/2025 of the Court of Cassation offers a guiding light for employers, labor consultants, and lawyers. The correct identification of the competent authority is an indispensable prerequisite for the validity of the sanctioning measure. Ignoring these temporal distinctions could lead to the annulment of sanctions due to formal or competence defects, nullifying the action to combat undeclared work. It is therefore imperative that legal operators and companies are aware of these precise temporal and regulatory limits, referring to Article 36-bis, paragraph 7-bis, of Legislative Decree No. 223 of 2006, both in its original wording and as amended by Law No. 183 of 2010.

Conclusions: Legal Certainty and Combating Undeclared Work

Once again, the Court of Cassation proves to be the guardian of legal certainty, resolving a complex interpretative issue and providing a clearer framework for the application of the maxi-sanction for irregular employment. Order No. 17549 of 2025 not only strengthens the effectiveness of the action against undeclared work but also offers indispensable guidance for all those operating in the world of work, emphasizing the importance of scrupulous compliance with current regulations and related institutional competences. The fight against the shadow economy continues, with the aim of protecting workers' rights and ensuring a fair and transparent labor market.