Analysis of Judgment No. 1864 of 2025: Conditions for the Intervention of the T.F.R. Guarantee Fund

The recent judgment No. 1864 of January 27, 2025, issued by the Court of Appeal of Milan, offers important clarifications regarding the intervention of INPS's Guarantee Fund for the payment of Severance Pay (T.F.R.) in case of employer insolvency. This issue is of fundamental importance for workers, especially when the employer is not subject to bankruptcy and the company has been delisted from the companies' register.

Context of the Judgment

According to the judgment, the intervention of the Guarantee Fund presupposes the judicial ascertainment of the existence and amount of the debt before the Fund's support can be requested. This aspect is crucial, as it establishes that even if the employer has not gone bankrupt, a formal ascertainment of the debt is necessary.

Employer insolvency - Intervention of the T.F.R. Guarantee Fund - Requirements - Employer not subject to bankruptcy - Judicial ascertainment of the debt - Necessity - Company delisted from the companies' register - Ascertainment against the partners - Collection of sums based on the final liquidation balance sheet - Irrelevance. The intervention of INPS's Guarantee Fund for the non-payment of T.F.R. presupposes, even when the employer is not subject to bankruptcy, the judicial ascertainment of the existence and amount of the debt prior to the request for intervention. Therefore, if the employer is a company delisted from the companies' register, such ascertainment can be carried out against the partners, as their successors and consequently possessing passive legitimacy, regardless of the actual collection of sums based on the company's liquidation balance sheet.

Requirements for the Guarantee Fund's Intervention

The judgment emphasizes that the requirements for accessing the intervention of INPS's Guarantee Fund are precisely defined. Here are the key points:

• Necessity of a judicial ascertainment of the existence and amount of the debt.
• Possibility of carrying out such ascertainment against the partners of a company delisted from the companies' register.
• The partners are considered successors and, therefore, possess passive legitimacy.

These requirements highlight the importance of a correct legal procedure to guarantee workers' rights, even when they face situations of employer insolvency.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 1864 of 2025 represents an important milestone in the protection of workers' rights in situations of insolvency. It clarifies that, even in the absence of employer bankruptcy, a judicial ascertainment of the debt is essential to access the Guarantee Fund. This judgment not only offers clear guidance for workers but also establishes the rights and duties of partners in the event of a company's delisting from the companies' register. It is essential for workers to be informed about these procedures to effectively protect their rights.