Meanwhile, it is necessary to remember what Quota 100 is: it was a financial benefit provided on request to employed and self-employed workers who accrued, in the period between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021, the requirements for this form of early pension. The requirements, in addition to the termination of the employment relationship, were to have a chronological age of no less than 62 years and a contribution period of no less than 38 years.
Among the various characteristics of this institution, as can still be read on the page dedicated to Quota 100 on the INPS website, there was also the possibility of aggregation with income from work. In detail, the measure was not "cumulative with income deriving from any work activity, even carried out abroad, with the exception of that deriving from occasional self-employment within the limit of 5 thousand euros gross per year".
On the INPS website we further read: "The production of income deriving from work other than occasional self-employment, or the production of income deriving from occasional self-employment beyond the limit of 5 thousand euros gross per year, entails the suspension of the provision of pension treatment in the year of production of the aforementioned income and the possible recovery of the pension installments unduly paid".
And the Supreme Court of Cassation has expressed its opinion in recent days on a case relating to such a situation. Specifically, a pensioner had carried out some collaborations in 2020 while remaining under the threshold of 5 thousand euros required by law. However, according to the INPS, those activities were not occasional - as expected and admitted by Quota 100 - but continuous, and therefore in violation of the legislation. And for this reason he had asked for the entire year of pension paid back.
The Court and the Court of Appeal had agreed with the Institute, establishing that the pensioner had to repay the entire year of pension received with Quota 100. However, the Supreme Court partially modified the decisions of the previous levels: the Supreme Court in fact confirmed that the pensioner had carried out non-occasional work, in violation of the law, however he is not required to repay the entire amount for the year but only the portion corresponding to the amount collected through his work activity.
In the ruling, the Supreme Court wrote: "The prohibition on cumulation between the Quota 100 pension and income from employed or self-employed work, with the exception of that deriving from occasional self-employment, within the limit of 5,000 euros gross per year, must be understood in the sense that the pensioner cannot enjoy, from the first day of commencement of the pension and until the fulfillment of the requirements for access to the old-age pension, two payments, pension and work-related. Violation of the prohibition determines deprivation of the pension in an amount corresponding to the amount of earned income achieved, through the deduction, from the overall pension treatment, i.e. referring to the entire time horizon set by the provision, of a sum equal to the earnings received".
The decision of the Supreme Court - as reported by various media - represents a change of direction compared to what was established by the Court itself in 2024: previously the Supreme Court had in fact accepted the theory of the loss of the entire annual amount in case of violation of the clause relating to work activities present in Quota 100.
