The conflict surrounding Italian pensioners who carried out small occasional jobs gains international importance by showing how an administrative interpretation can profoundly change the lives of those who depend on the pension. This topic, centered on the impact of the “quota 100” early retirement rules, has become one of the most sensitive debates in Italy and raises questions that cross borders, as is the case of this retired baker.
The story of Angelo Menapace, a retired baker from Tuenno, became the face of this controversy. After helping his cousin for a month in a fish market and receiving 280 euros for 30 hours of punctual work, the Italian National Social Security Institute (INPS) demanded 19 thousand euros from him, claiming that the simple act of working violated the rules of “quota 100”.
Menapace immediately challenged the decision at the Trento Labor Court. While awaiting a resolution, he addressed the President of the Italian Republic, but the Palazzo del Quirinale clarified that the head of State cannot intervene in decisions made by entities such as the INPS, according to the Spanish digital newspaper HuffPost. The response, signed by Andrea Fusco, confirmed the institutional limits of this type of appeal.
Strict interpretation of “quota 100”
At the center of the conflict is an internal INPS circular. According to lawyer Giovanni Guarini, this document determines that any retiree covered by “quota 100” who performs paid work, even occasional work, automatically loses the entire pension received that year. According to the jurist, the reading does not have direct support in legislation, being an excessively severe administrative interpretation.
Court intervention
In recent days some hope has emerged with a decision from the Constitutional Court, activated by a question posed by the Labor Court of Ravenna. This court considered the Court of Cassation’s interpretation unconstitutional because, in practice, it deprived pensioners of essential means of subsistence, contrary to article 38 of the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court declared the issue inadmissible, but left an essential point: the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent judges from choosing alternative interpretations that are more compatible with the Constitution. And he highlighted that several courts, including the Trento Court of Appeal and a court in Rovereto in February 2025, continued to adopt different criteria, according to the previously cited source.
The decision-making room of lower courts
For experts and lawyers, cited by , this observation is particularly relevant. It demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s position has not become a mandatory doctrine and that lower courts can evaluate each case autonomously, considering the fundamental rights involved.
According to lawyer Guarini, the Constitutional Court’s decision does not close the debate. On the contrary, it returns to the courts the freedom to decide on a case-by-case basis. For people like Menapace, he says, the game “plays itself again”, leaving room for more balanced and fair solutions.
Framework in Portugal
The case of this retired baker in Italy has no direct parallel in Portugal, as the Portuguese system allows the accumulation of the pension with work, including dependent or independent work, without automatic loss of benefit. The regime is much more flexible and assumes that the pensioner can continue to be active, as long as he meets his contribution obligations.
From a legal point of view, the Portuguese framework is mainly based on:
- Decree-Law No. 187/2007, which clarifies rules on accumulation between pensions and work income;
- Code of Contributory Regimes of the Social Security System, which determines that old-age pensioners can continue to carry out professional activities, and must only make contributions to Social Security if they carry out dependent or independent work.
Thus, contrary to what happens with the Italian “quota 100”, in Portugal a retiree can carry out small occasional jobs or even continue to work regularly without losing their pension, only maintaining the obligation to contribute when the nature of the work requires it.
Also read:
