Quota 100: The Constitutional Court Rules on the Ban on Combining Pension with Employment Income

With judgment No. 162 of November 4, 2025, the Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of Article 14, paragraph 3, of Decree-Law No. 4/2019, which governs the prohibition on combining the so-called “Quota 100” early retirement pension with income from employment or self-employment. The issue was raised by the Labour Court of Ravenna, which considered disproportionate the consequence established by case law—particularly by Supreme Court ruling No. 30994/2024—whereby any breach of the prohibition results in suspension of the pension for an entire year, even in cases of minimal work activity and negligible earnings.

In the case at hand, the claimant—receiving a “Quota 100” pension since November 2019—worked for a single day in September 2020 under a fixed-term employment contract with an agricultural company, earning a gross amount of €83.91. Despite the minimal nature of the work and the negligible income, INPS deemed the prohibition violated and notified the claimant of an undue payment of €23,949.05, corresponding to the full annual pension for 2020. The referring judge considered this consequence manifestly disproportionate to the conduct, depriving the pensioner of any social security protection for twelve months. Consequently, the judge raised constitutional questions with reference to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution (principles of reasonableness and proportionality), Article 38 (right to social security), and Article 117, paragraph 1, in relation to Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the ECHR.

The Prohibition on Combining Income and Its Rationale

The “Quota 100” scheme, introduced on an experimental basis by Decree-Law No. 4/2019, allows early retirement upon reaching at least 62 years of age and 38 years of contributions. Among the conditions set by the legislator is the prohibition on combining pension with income from employment or self-employment until eligibility for the old-age pension is reached, with the sole exception of occasional self-employment up to €5,000 per year. However, the law does not specify the consequences of a breach, leaving room for interpretation.

The Supreme Court’s Interpretation

INPS had previously indicated—through Circular No. 117/2019—that, as an administrative practice, any breach of the prohibition should result in suspension of the pension for the entire reference year. The debate intensified following Supreme Court ruling No. 30994/2024, which interpreted the prohibition as an absolute incompatibility. According to the Court, earning any income from employment contradicts the assumption of withdrawal from the labor market, an essential condition for accessing a preferential pension scheme. Hence the consequence: total loss of the pension for the entire calendar year in which the violation occurred, not just for the months concerned. The Court justified this approach by invoking the solidarity rationale of the measure and the need to promote generational turnover, considering a strong response legitimate in light of the early benefit granted compared to the ordinary system. However, this interpretation raised concerns about proportionality, especially in cases—such as the one before the Ravenna court—where the work activity was limited to a few hours and the income was entirely marginal.

Referral to the Constitutional Court and the Inadmissibility Ruling

Considering the Supreme Court’s interpretation binding, the referring judge raised constitutional questions, highlighting the disproportionate nature of the measure in relation to principles of reasonableness and social security protection. The Constitutional Court, however, declared the questions inadmissible. According to the Court, the Supreme Court’s interpretation does not constitute “settled case law” or “living law,” as it lacks sufficient stability from repeated rulings and does not prevent lower courts from adopting a constitutionally oriented interpretation, potentially limiting suspension to the monthly installments affected by the breach.

Therefore, the ruling does not address the merits of proportionality between the violation and its consequences but strongly emphasizes that, in the absence of a consolidated interpretation, it is up to ordinary judges to identify solutions consistent with constitutional principles. The debate on the consequences of breaching the prohibition remains open, pending possible legislative intervention or consolidation of case law.