Undue Social Benefits and Protection of Legitimate Expectation: The Court of Cassation with Order No. 17396 of 2025

In the complex landscape of social security and welfare law, the issue of recovering unduly received benefits often represents a slippery slope, capable of generating uncertainty and litigation. In this context, Order No. 17396 of the Court of Cassation of June 28, 2025 (Reporting Judge A. Gnani) stands as a beacon of clarity, reaffirming a fundamental principle: the protection of the citizen's legitimate expectation. This ruling, which saw M. (DEL BIGIO G.) and I. (PULLI C.) pitted against each other, quashes and remands the decision of the Court of Appeal of Ancona, offering valuable insights into the limits of the right to reclaim undue payments by social security institutions.

The Principle of Legitimate Expectation and Undue Social Benefits

The concept of 'undue social benefits' refers to a situation where an individual has received economic benefits of a welfare nature (such as allowances or pensions) without being entitled to them, or having subsequently lost that entitlement. The general rule, also established by Article 2033 of the Civil Code, requires the repayment of amounts received without legal basis. However, social security and welfare law, also strengthened by the constitutional principles of solidarity and social protection (Art. 38 of the Constitution), introduces exceptions, particularly when the recipient's legitimate expectation is at stake.

The Court of Cassation, with the Order under review, wished to emphasize that the need to recover undue sums must be balanced with the necessity of protecting the citizen who has relied, in good faith and without fault, on the legitimacy of the benefit received. This principle is not new in the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation (see, for example, previous rulings No. 24133 of 2021 and No. 34013 of 2019), but it is forcefully reaffirmed here in a peculiar factual scenario.

The Ruling of the Court of Cassation and the Specific Case

The cornerstone of Order No. 17396/2025 is encapsulated in its ruling, which deserves careful analysis:

The recovery of undue social benefits is excluded in the presence of a situation capable of generating the recipient's legitimate expectation, provided that the payment in question is not attributable to them. (In this case, the Supreme Court quashed and remanded the lower court's judgment which had recognized the INPS's right to recover a welfare allowance due to the subsequent lack of the medical requirement, without having previously verified the circumstance – relevant to the existence of the beneficiary's legitimate expectation – that they had been informed of the negative outcome of the review medical examination).

This statement is of fundamental importance. The Supreme Court establishes that the INPS (or another paying institution) cannot demand the repayment of undue social benefits if two conditions are met: first, there must be an objective situation that generated a reasonable expectation in the beneficiary regarding the legitimacy of the benefit; second, the payment must not be attributable to fraudulent or negligent conduct by the recipient. In the specific case subject to the Order, the INPS had requested the repayment of a welfare allowance due to the subsequent lack of the medical requirement. However, the Supreme Court criticized the lower court's decision, which had recognized the INPS's right without first ascertaining a crucial element: whether the beneficiary had been informed of the negative outcome of the review medical examination. The failure to communicate such a relevant fact, in fact, can easily generate legitimate expectation in the citizen, who continues to receive the benefit believing it is still due.

The Importance of Communication and Citizen Protection

This ruling emphasizes the transparency and correctness of administrative action, in line with provisions such as Law No. 88/1989 and Decree-Law No. 78/2010, which often govern the mechanisms for paying and recovering benefits. Public bodies have a duty to promptly and clearly inform citizens of any change or cessation of their entitlement to a benefit. Failure to comply with this duty can have direct consequences on the ability to recover disbursed sums. For the citizen, this means that their good faith is a value protected by the legal system, provided that the error was not caused by their own conduct. Here are some key points to keep in mind:

• **Clarity of Communications:** Social security institutions must ensure clear and timely communications regarding the status of benefits.
• **Recipient's Good Faith:** If the citizen received the sums believing legitimately that they were entitled to them, without having caused the error, their legitimate expectation is protected.
• **Non-Attribution of Error:** The undue payment must not be attributable to the beneficiary, in accordance with the criterion stated in the official headnote.

The Order of the Court of Cassation, Section L, thus reaffirms a principle of legal civilization, protecting the weaker party in the relationship – the beneficiary – from the effects of errors or omissions attributable to the administration.

Conclusions: A Safeguard for Legitimate Expectation

Order No. 17396 of 2025 requires a specific assessment of the beneficiary's legitimate expectation and whether the undue payment was attributable to them. The Court remanded the case because the lower court had not established whether the negative medical review result had been communicated, a relevant circumstance in assessing that expectation. The ruling does not finally establish that notification was absent, nor does the mere absence of a revocation notice automatically exclude repayment. The beneficiary's position must be assessed against the facts established.

Source: Official headnote Rv. 675652-01, Court of Cassation, Labour Section, Order No. 17396/2025, June 2025 civil case-law review, p. 143; this analysis is based on the official headnote.