Settlement scheme and social-security proceedings: the first instalment is enough to end the case

The Corte di cassazione (Italian Supreme Court) has held that a social-security case brought by a contributor who opted into the settlement scheme is discontinued even though only part of the instalments have been paid. For the sole purpose of discontinuing proceedings, the settlement is completed once the first or only instalment is paid, not once payment is made in full. A finding of discontinuance carries no order as to costs, and does not trigger the additional amount due for court fees that applies to other types of rulings.

The case and the ruling

Corte di cassazione, Labour Section, ordinanza (order) no. 24275 of 30 July 2026, chamber deliberation of 26 May 2026, President Lucia Esposito, Rapporteur Riccardo Rosetti.

The dispute (case no. R.G.N. 27589/2022) concerned a self-employed professional’s challenge to an INPS (national social security institute) payment notice for ex officio registration with the gestione separata (self-employed workers’ scheme), rejected at first instance and on appeal. In a submission dated 13 November 2023 the appellant withdrew the appeal, declared that he had opted into the settlement scheme under Article 1, paragraphs 231 et seq., of Law no. 197 of 29 December 2022, and filed the statement of amounts due together with proof of payment of the first instalment; eleven of the eighteen instalments had by then been paid.

The disputed point was the second sentence of Article 1, paragraph 236, of Law no. 197/2022, which makes discontinuance conditional on the actual completion of the settlement. This was addressed by Article 12-bis of Decree-Law no. 84 of 17 June 2025, converted with amendments by Law no. 108 of 30 July 2025, in force since 2 August 2025, as an authentic interpretive provision: for the sole purpose of discontinuing proceedings, completion occurs upon payment of the first or only instalment, and discontinuance is declared by the court of its own motion once the statement of adhesion, the statement of amounts due, and proof of that payment are produced. The Court applied this ius superveniens (intervening law).

The interpretive rule covers both the debts included in the statement of adhesion under Article 1, paragraph 235, of Law no. 197/2022, and those covered by the reinstatement scheme under Article 3-bis, paragraph 1, of Decree-Law no. 202 of 27 December 2024, converted with amendments by Law no. 15 of 21 February 2025. The order follows the line taken by the Sezioni Unite (Joint Sections), judgment no. 5889 of 2026, which on the same provision held that completion occurs with the first or only instalment, that the settlement scheme also applies to debts of a non-tax nature, and that its effects, both substantive and procedural, extend to a jointly liable co-debtor who did not opt in.

Practical implications

• With a social-security case pending and a settlement scheme under way, discontinuance can be requested as soon as the first instalment is paid: there is no need to wait for the last one.
• Costs remain with the party that advanced them: absent special provisions, the Court applies the general rule of Article 310, last paragraph, of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure. In the case decided, the appellant had also withdrawn the appeal, but discontinuance was declared under Article 12-bis rather than for withdrawal: Article 391, last paragraph, of the Code of Civil Procedure — which lets the court order costs against the party responsible for the discontinuance — therefore did not apply.
• The additional amount equal to the court fee already due, under Article 13, paragraph 1-quater, of Presidential Decree no. 115/2002 (the so-called “double fee”), does not apply: that provision affects only an appeal that is rejected in full, declared inadmissible or found not to be pursuable, not a case that is discontinued.

The effect, however, is purely procedural: payment of the first instalment completes the settlement solely for the purpose of discontinuing proceedings, it does not extinguish the debt. On the substantive side, Article 1, paragraph 244, of Law no. 197/2022 continues to apply: a missed, insufficient or late payment of any later instalment, beyond the five-day tolerance, deprives the settlement of effect, causes limitation and forfeiture periods to run again, and revives the penalties and interest that had been reduced; amounts already paid remain credited as a payment on account of the total sum due and do not extinguish the residual debt, which the collection agent continues to pursue. The money paid is not lost, but the remaining liability again becomes enforceable.

On a separate level are the effects of a discontinuance already declared, governed by Article 12-bis, paragraph 2: judgments on the merits and other measures issued during the proceedings that have not become final lose effect, and sums paid on any basis in connection with those proceedings remain permanently acquired and are not refundable. These are consequences of the discontinuance as such, not of a later forfeiture of the instalment plan; they explain why, once the case is discontinued, the claim no longer has an open forum for challenge, and any subsequent forfeiture affects a claim that can no longer be contested.

In practice

• Who acts — defence counsel, together with the professional who handles the social-security position.
• By when — while the case is pending, as soon as the first instalment is paid; if the case is already stayed, by filing a motion without waiting for the next hearing.
• With which document — a motion for discontinuance together with the statement of adhesion, the statement of amounts due and proof of payment of the first instalment.
• What to keep on file — the instalment plan, the subsequent payment receipts and the schedule of instalments, bearing in mind the five-day tolerance beyond which the settlement loses effect.