The Supreme Court corrects the SEPE and endorses simultaneously collecting unemployment and dismissal compensation

2023-10-11 16:37:57

The Supreme Court has established that those who have received deferred compensation for dismissal – in monthly scheduled amounts – can also collect unemployment because said compensation does not count as income.

The Chamber thus corrects the criteria of the State Public Employment Service (SEPE), which had denied unemployment to a worker over 52 years of age by considering that this formula of receiving compensation for his dismissal in a deferred manner constituted an income for the purposes of collecting unemployment benefit. Employment defended that this was imposed by tax laws and that, consequently, the compensation should be computed for the purposes of determining the worker’s income level and prevented the collection of the subsidy.

In the ruling, the court upholds the specific rule of the General Social Security Law, which establishes that the legal compensation for dismissal is not considered income.

The magistrates have studied the case of a man who reached an agreement with his company regarding his dismissal for objective reasons. “The agreed compensation amount was 209,471.66 euros,” according to the resolution, which states that said sum was paid in monthly installments between 2012 and 2019.

The payment method does not matter

The Supreme Court has explained that – regardless of the form of payment – when accessing unemployment benefits, said compensation should not be counted as income for the purposes of determining whether or not income greater than 75% of the Minimum Interprofessional Wage (SMI) is received. ), which is the required requirement.

The court emphasizes that the fact that the dismissal compensation is paid in installments through an insurance policy taken out by the company does not imply that the nature of said compensation changes nor that it is not exempt for the purposes of the calculation provided to study whether unemployment is granted or not.

“It is evident that the law did not intend to penalize or treat differently the compensation received periodically, without distinction regarding the form of said deferred payment or who ultimately assumes the payment,” the magistrates conclude.

According to the Supreme Court, what is declared exempt is the amount received for compensation derived from the termination of the contract up to the legal limit, “regardless of the form of payment, the duration of the payment and the tax treatment of the compensation.”