7 April 2026
Incentives
Early NASpI Payment: Self-Employment Incentive Now Paid in Two Instalments with New Conditions
INPS
INPS has intervened on the rules governing the self-employment incentive available to NASpI recipients who intend to start an independent or entrepreneurial activity.
The main change concerns the payment structure: the advance is no longer paid in a single lump sum but is split into two tranches. A first instalment, equal to 70% of the total amount, is paid upon acceptance of the application; the remaining 30% is paid only at the end of the theoretical NASpI entitlement period and in any event within six months of the application.
Payment of the second instalment is subject to specific conditions: the worker must not have entered into a subordinate employment relationship, nor have become entitled to a direct pension. An exception applies where the work is carried out within a worker-owned cooperative.
Particularly significant is the strengthening of the consequences in cases of re-employment: not only does the right to the second instalment lapse, but the worker is also required to repay in full the first instalment already received.
The new rules apply to applications submitted from 1 January 2026 and introduce a more structured system designed to verify, over time, whether the entrepreneurial initiative is consistent with the purpose of the incentive.
14 April 2026
Privacy and Data Protection
Vehicle Geolocation: Privacy Obligations Apply Even Without Direct Identification of the Worker
Court of Cassation
The case arose from a sanction imposed by the Data Protection Authority on a company for the use of a vehicle geolocation system without prior notification. The Tribunal had annulled the measure, finding that the system did not enable the identification of workers and was managed by a third party.
The Court of Cassation reversed this approach, clarifying that, for the purposes of data processing obligations, what is relevant is the possibility of linking — even indirectly — the position of the vehicle to the worker. It is sufficient that the system enables the geographical location of a vehicle to be identified, given that the employer may trace the identity of the driver through other company data.
It is therefore not necessary for identification to occur automatically or immediately: the mere potential for such a link suffices, even through subsequent processing or the cross-referencing of information. Nor is it relevant that the system is managed by a third party, where the company retains access to the data or the relevant login credentials.
20 March 2026
Inspections and Penalties
Cash Payment of Wages: A Separate Penalty Applies to Each Payment, Even Where Periodic
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker filed an objection against an enforcement order in which the inspection authority had challenged, among other things, the payment of wages in cash to a worker. Both the first-instance judge and the Court of Appeal confirmed the lawfulness of the penalty, finding it correctly calibrated to the number of payments made.
The matter came before the Court of Cassation, where the appellant argued that the penalty should relate to the remuneration as a whole and not to each individual payment.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the traceability obligation applies to each individual wage payment. It follows that the violation occurs each time the employer pays amounts to the worker in cash, regardless of the frequency adopted. The penalty must therefore be applied for each payment made by an impermissible method.
The Court also excluded the application of the legal concurrence of offences, finding that the conduct in question consists of distinct acts repeated over time, with the consequence that penalties are to be accumulated in full.
24 February 2026
Equal Opportunities and Discrimination
Performance Bonus and Law 104 Leave: Exclusion from Attendance Calculation Is Discriminatory
Milan Court of Appeal
Several workers brought proceedings claiming that the company had miscalculated various pay components, including the performance bonus, which had been reduced on account of absences taken as leave to assist disabled family members. The Tribunal upheld the claim, finding it discriminatory that such absences were not treated as equivalent to attendance. The company appealed.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the first-instance decision, holding that the exclusion of leave taken for the assistance of disabled persons from the category of “neutral” absences for bonus purposes constitutes direct discrimination. Although formally based on attendance, the bonus mechanism ends up penalising carer workers compared to other employees whose absences are instead counted as qualifying for the benefit.
According to the Court, discrimination exists even where the unfavourable treatment results from the application of a collective clause, as the employer cannot escape liability for the objectively discriminatory effect of the rules applied. It is also irrelevant that the worker is not himself disabled, since discrimination based on the disability of an assisted family member is equally prohibited.
It follows that days of leave taken for caring purposes must be included in the calculation of the performance bonus, on the same basis as other absences already treated as equivalent to attendance.
16 March 2026
Social Security and Contributions
Pensions: Life Expectancy Adjustment — New Requirements for 2027–2028
INPS
The circular addresses the adjustment of pension eligibility requirements in connection with the increase in life expectancy for the 2027–2028 period, clarifying how the rules apply and which categories are excluded.
As a general rule, the conditions for accessing pension benefits will increase progressively: by one month in 2027 and by three months from 2028 onwards. This affects both the age for the old-age pension and the contribution requirements for early retirement, resulting in an overall raising of the eligibility thresholds.
For the old-age pension, the qualifying age is set at 67 years and 1 month in 2027 and 67 years and 3 months in 2028. Equivalent adjustments apply to early retirement, with an increase in the contribution requirements. The requirements for so-called “early career” workers are also updated.
The rules do however provide for significant exceptions. In particular, the increase does not apply to workers engaged in arduous or particularly strenuous activities, subject to specific conditions, nor to certain categories of early career workers. Conversely, for personnel in the defence, security, and public rescue sectors, a further increase in requirements is provided.
17 March 2026
Unemployment Benefits
NASpI and Intermittent Work: Actual Duration Counts, Not the Formal Length of the Contract
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A worker brought proceedings to establish that the unemployment benefit he had received was not recoverable, which the social security authority considered to have been unduly paid on the grounds that he had carried out work activity during the same period.
In the case at hand, the worker had held multiple intermittent employment contracts with no availability obligation, whose combined formal duration exceeded six months, but with actual working days falling below that threshold. The lower courts had upheld the claim, excluding the forfeiture of the benefit.
The Court of Cassation confirmed this approach, clarifying that, for the purposes of loss of entitlement to the benefit, what is relevant is the actual duration of the work performed, not the duration formally provided for in the contract. Accordingly, even where a series of contracts, taken together, exceed six months in formal length, forfeiture does not apply if the days of work actually carried out remain below that limit.
The principle is of particular significance in intermittent work without a call obligation, which is characterised by discontinuous performance: in such cases, the calculation must be based exclusively on periods of actual activity, with the formal duration of the contractual relationship being irrelevant.
3 April 2026
Pay and Benefits
Pay Reduction: Agreements Valid Only Before a Protected Authority, Even Without a Change of Duties
Court of Cassation, Labour Division
A managerial worker brought proceedings claiming that he had signed an agreement with the company to reduce his remuneration — outside of a protected setting — intended to address a company crisis, but which had remained in place for several years. He sought a declaration that the agreement was null and void and recognition of the outstanding pay differentials accrued. After an initial dismissal, the Court of Appeal upheld the claim, finding the agreement invalid and ordering the employer to pay the arrears.
The dispute came before the Court of Cassation, which addressed the issue of contractual pay reductions in light of the current legislative framework. The Court noted that, under the existing system, any agreement that worsens remuneration is subject to strict formal and procedural requirements, including the mandatory involvement of a protected setting.
The principle affirmed is that every individual agreement to reduce pay — even where not accompanied by a change of duties — must be concluded before a protected authority; failing this, it is null and void. The protection extends not only to professional standing but also to remuneration as an essential element of the employment relationship, which the parties cannot freely dispose of except in compliance with the prescribed safeguards.
