Life annuity under Art. 13 L. 1338/1962: the Court of Cassation overcomes INPS interpretation

With ruling no. 22802 of 2025, the United Sections of the Court of Cassation introduced a significant interpretative change regarding life annuities under Art. 13, Law of August 12, 1962, no. 1338, overcoming INPS’s consolidated administrative practice, most recently expressed in Circular no. 48/2025.

The institution of the life annuity

The life annuity is the instrument that allows the valorization, for pension purposes, of work periods not covered by mandatory contributions, due to the employer’s failure to pay contributions that can no longer be regularized because of the statute of limitations (Art. 55 R.D.L. October 4, 1935, no. 1827).

Art. 13 of Law 1338/1962 provides, first, the possibility for the employer who failed to pay mandatory contributions and can no longer regularize the position due to prescription, to establish with INPS a life annuity corresponding to the pension or pension quota due to the worker, upon presentation of suitable documentation proving the existence and duration of the employment relationship as well as the amount of wages paid (paragraphs 1 and 4). At the same time, the law grants the worker the right to replace the employer in case of the latter’s inaction, allowing the worker to request the establishment of the annuity and, residually, to cover it entirely at their own expense, pursuant to paragraphs 5 and 7.

The 2024 legislator, with Art. 30 L. 203/2024, introduced paragraph 7, granting the worker an imprescriptible right to establish the annuity, although without recourse rights.

Prescription according to INPS

According to INPS’s interpretation, consolidated until 2025, the prescription period for establishing the annuity was the same for both employer and worker, running from the moment of contribution prescription under Art. 3, paragraph 9, L. 335/1995 (five years from the missed payment).

However, this approach significantly limited the worker’s ability to act, since they often had no timely knowledge of missed contributions, effectively being prejudiced by an automatic and externally determined starting date.

The Court of Cassation’s decision

With ruling no. 22802/2025, the United Sections distinguished the employer’s position from that of the worker, establishing the following principle of law:

• Employer: prescription remains anchored to the five-year period for missed contributions, according to the traditional approach (Art. 3, paragraphs 9-10, L. 335/1995).
• Worker: the ten-year prescription period for establishing the life annuity starts from the moment the worker becomes actually aware of the missed contributions and the definitive impossibility of regularization.

Thus, the worker’s prescription period no longer coincides with the employer’s, potentially starting later and significantly expanding pension protection.

Compensation for pension damage

The Court also reaffirmed the worker’s right to take civil action for compensation of pension damage under Art. 2116, paragraph 2, Civil Code, with a ten-year prescription running from the moment the damage manifests, typically upon denial or reduced payment of the pension benefit.

The ruling departs significantly from INPS’s administrative practice, reaffirming the need for an interpretation that considers the worker’s weaker informational position compared to the employer.

Ultimately, the Court of Cassation restores centrality to the principle of effective pension protection, overcoming a formalistic interpretation and ensuring that workers are not unreasonably penalized by contribution omissions unknowable within rigid administrative prescription deadlines.