News Supreme Court rulings July 2020

1. Undue compensation: failure to record the transaction in the tax drawer is irrelevant

In the field of tax crimes, the Supreme Court in ruling no. 23027 ud. 06/23/2020 (dep. 07/29/2020) clarified that the consummative moment of the crime of undue compensation under Art. 10-quater of Legislative Decree. n. 74/2000 coincides with the time of submission of the last F24 form for the year concerned.

Of no relevance, therefore, in the absence of doubt about the non-existence of the credits brought in compensation, the failure to register the transaction and the consequent non-updating of the so-called tax drawer, as activities subsequent to the submission of the form, the only moment in which the deceptive conduct of the taxpayer is perfected and the non-payment is realized as a result of the offsetting of credits that are not actually due.

2. Mobbing compensable by INAIL

By Ordinance no. 8948/2020, the Supreme Court upheld the arguments of a worker who had had his claim for recognition of the occupational nature of the illness caused by his employer’s vexatious conduct rejected on the merits, on the grounds that it did not arise directly from the work listed in Art. 1 of Presidential Decree no. 1124/1965.

The court noted that from long-standing guidance, the worker’s insurance protection is not limited to the specific risks of work, but also to improper ones, among which are also to be included occupational diseases not included in the Inail tables (Law No. 38/2000, in Art. 10, co. 4). Therefore, all illnesses of a physical or mental nature whose origin can be traced back to the risk of work, whether it relates to the workmanship, the organization of the work or the manner of its performance, are indemnifiable.

3. Condominium meeting and failure to convene a condominium: the resolution is voidable

The Second Civil Section, in its May 28, 2020, ruling no. 10071, clarified that the failure to notify any of the condominium owners of the notice of the condominium meeting gives rise to the annulment of the condominium resolution, which can only be enforced by the pretermitted condominium owner under Articles 1441 and 1324 of the Civil Code.

The Court further clarified that the interest of the condominium owner asserting a defect of annulment cannot be reduced to a mere interest in the removal of the act or an abstract claim of its absolute compliance with the legal model, but must be an expression of his qualified position, aimed at eliminating the situation of objective uncertainty as to the existence of rights and obligations arising from the resolution passed in his absence.