Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2026:36
Date: 2026-01-22
Language of the case: Italian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Translation  C-633/24 – 1 
Case C-633/24 [Sovisso] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
27 September 2024 
Referring court: 
Corte suprema di cassazione – Sezione Lavoro (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
17 September 2024 
Applicant and appellant: 
F.F. 
Respondent: 
Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) 
  
THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC 
[…] 
THE CORTE SUPREMA DI CASSAZIONE 
SEZIONE LAVORO (SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION, 
EMPLOYMENT DIVISION) 
[…] 
gives the following 
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER 
in the appeal […] brought by: 
F.F., […]; 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-633/24 
 
2  
- appellant - 
v 
INPS – ISTITUTO NAZIONALE PREVIDENZA SOCIALE, […] 
- respondent - 
against judgment No 16/2018 of the Corte d’appello di Torino (Court of Appeal, 
Turin, Italy) […]; 
[…] 
Background to the dispute 
1 By judgment No 16 of 15 January 2018, the Corte d’appello di Torino (Court of 
Appeal, Turin, Italy) dismissed the appeal brought by F.F. against the judgment of 
the Tribunale di Torino (District Court, Turin, Italy), which had rejected F.F.’s 
claim against INPS seeking the right to receive the ordinary disability allowance 
pursuant to legge n. 222/84 (Law No 222/84), topped up to the minimum level. 
2 The District Court rejected the claim on the ground that there was no contribution 
requirement, since the applicant was found to have paid only 260 weekly 
contributions in Italy, equivalent to 5 years of contributions. Therefore, the 
requirement laid down in Article 8(2) of legge n. 153/69 (Law No 153/69), which 
provides that, in the event of the aggregation of insurance and contribution periods 
under international agreements, the person concerned must have accrued, in the 
relevant pension scheme, a minimum of 10 years of contributions from continuous 
employment in Italy, had not been met. As a result, the allowance could not be 
topped up to the minimum level, even taking into account contributions that the 
applicant had accrued in Switzerland prior to 1996. 
3 The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment at first instance, finding that the amount 
of ordinary disability allowance claimed by the applicant could not be topped up 
to the minimum level, since the contributions paid in Italy had all accrued after 
31 December 1995 under the contributions system. Consequently, under 
Article 1(16) of legge n. 335 del 1995 (Law No 335 of 1995), any top-up was 
precluded by law. If the contributions accrued under the international convention 
were taken into account, Article 8(2) of Law No 153/69 would require 10 years of 
contributions accrued in Italy (whereas the applicant could only claim 5 years). 
This would have allowed the ‘aggregation’ of the contributions accrued partly in 
Switzerland (before 1 January 1996) and partly in Italy (after 31 December 1995), 
so as to qualify for the ‘hybrid’ system and thus escape the prohibition on the top-
up to the minimum level for pensions calculated solely under the contributions 
system (in accordance with the abovementioned Article 1(16)). Lastly, according 
to the Court of Appeal, it was not possible to pay the benefit pro rata to F.F. under 
Article 52(3) of Law No 883, taking into account, on the one hand, both the Italian 
and the Swiss contributions and, on the other, the Italian contributions alone, since 
SOVISSO 
 
3 
the amounts payable were found to be identical (equivalent to a gross amount of 
EUR 106.00 in both cases) – in other words, less than the statutory disability 
allowance already received by F.F. of EUR 218.16. The Court of Appeal 
concluded that if F.F. had paid contributions in Italy prior to 1996, the rules on the 
top-up to the minimum level could have been applied, which assumed that the 
Italian contributions had been calculated using the ‘hybrid’ system. 
4 F.F. brought an appeal on a point of law against the Court of Appeal judgment, 
relying on a single ground of appeal, whilst INPS lodged a defence. 
5 By the ground of appeal, the applicant alleges infringement of the law, and in 
particular Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in relation to subparagraph 
(3) of the first paragraph of Article 360 of the Codice di Procedura Civile (Code 
of Civil Procedure), since the Court of Appeal had erred in applying Article 8(2) 
of Law No 153/69 on the requirement for 10 years of contributions in Italy in 
order to be eligible for the pension supplement, in the event of the aggregation of 
contribution periods under international social security agreements or 
conventions. The applicant argues that such a requirement is contrary to EU 
legislation, in particular Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, which takes 
precedence over any conflicting national law and which provides for the 
abovementioned supplement, equal to the difference between the total of the 
benefits due under that regulation and the amount of the national minimum 
benefit. 
National provisions applicable to the facts of the dispute in the main 
proceedings and provisions of European Union law 
6 The national rules on the ordinary disability allowance are set out in Article 1 of 
legge n. 222 del 1984 (Law No 222 of 1984) (Revision of the rules on disability 
pensions, in Official Gazette of the Italian Republic No 165 of 16 June 1984, last 
update to the act published on 31 December 2007). Paragraph 3 of that article, in 
so far as is relevant, provides that if the allowance is less than the statutory 
minimum for individual schemes, it must be supplemented, subject to the cap on 
the statutory minimum, by an amount paid by the social fund equal to the amount 
of the social pension provided for in Article 26 of Law No 153 of 30 April 1969, 
as amended. 
7 In addition, according to Article 1(16) of legge n. 335/1995 (Law No 335/1995) 
reforming the compulsory and supplementary pension scheme (Italian Official 
Gazette No 190 of 16 August 1995 – Ordinary Supplement No 101, last update to 
the act published on 10 April 2024), ‘the provisions on the top-up to the minimum 
level do not apply to pensions paid solely under the contributions system’ – that is 
to say, pensions for which the contributions have accrued since 1 January 1996, as 
in the present case. 
8 Lastly, Article 8(2) of Law No 153 of 1969 (Revision of pension schemes and 
social security legislation, in Italian Official Gazette No [111] of 30 April 1969 – 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-633/24 
 
4  
Ordinary Supplement, last update to the act published on 25 June 2008) provides 
that ‘the statutory minimums referred to in the first paragraph are also payable to 
pensioners who qualify by virtue of the aggregation of insurance and contribution 
periods under international agreements or conventions on social insurance, 
provided that the insured person has accrued a minimum of 10 years of 
contributions in the relevant pension scheme from continuous employment in 
Italy’. 
9 As regards EU law, it should be recalled that Article 48(a) TFEU requires, to 
provide freedom of movement for workers, that the European Parliament and the 
Council adopt such measures as are necessary for the aggregation, not only for the 
purpose of acquiring and retaining the right to benefit, but of calculating the 
amount of benefit, of all insurance periods taken into account under the laws of 
the several countries (in order to avoid discrimination compared with citizens who 
have worked solely in their Member State of residence). 
10 In particular, under Article 1(t) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of 29 April 2004, 
the expression ‘period of insurance’ means ‘periods of contribution, employment 
or self-employment as defined or recognised as periods of insurance by the 
legislation under which they were completed or considered as completed, and all 
periods treated as such, where they are regarded by the said legislation as 
equivalent to periods of insurance’. 
11 Article 6 of Regulation No 883/2004, entitled ‘Aggregation of periods’ – which 
replaced (as of 1 May 2010) Article 45(1) of the earlier Regulation No 1408/71 – 
provides that for the purposes of determining the acquisition of the right to social 
security benefits, a Member State is to take into account the periods of insurance, 
employment, self-employment or residence completed under the legislation of any 
other Member State. In other words, the periods of insurance completed under the 
legislation of various Member States must be aggregated (judgment of 
7 December 2017, Zaniewicz-Dybeck, C-189/16. EU:C:2017:946, paragraph 41). 
12 Article 52 of Regulation No 883/2004 lays down the criteria for the payment of 
benefits on the basis of the calculation of a theoretical amount and subsequently 
an actual amount (pro-rata benefit), whereby the theoretical amount of the benefit 
is equal to the benefit which the person concerned could claim if all the periods of 
insurance and/or of residence which have been completed under the legislations of 
the other Member States had been completed under the legislation it applies on the 
date of the award of the benefit. According to that provision, if, under that 
legislation, the amount does not depend on the duration of the periods completed, 
that amount is to be regarded as being the theoretical amount. The competent 
institution then establishes the actual amount of the pro-rata benefit by applying to 
the theoretical amount the ratio between the duration of the periods completed 
before materialisation of the risk under the legislation it applies and the total 
duration of the periods completed before materialisation of the risk under the 
legislations of all the States concerned (see judgment of 21 October 2021, SC v 
SOVISSO 
 
5 
Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie, C-866/19, 
EU:C:2021:865, paragraphs 9, 18 to 21 and 23 et seq.). 
13 Lastly, as specifically regards the doubt as to interpretation which is the subject of 
this order, it should be recalled that Article 58 of Regulation No 883/2004 
provides that: ‘1. A recipient of benefits to whom this Chapter applies may not, in 
the Member State of residence and under whose legislation a benefit is payable to 
him, be provided with a benefit which is less than the minimum benefit fixed by 
that legislation for a period of insurance or residence equal to all the periods taken 
into account for the payment in accordance with this Chapter. 2. The competent 
institution of that Member State shall pay him throughout the period of his 
residence in its territory a supplement equal to the difference between the total of 
the benefits due under this Chapter and the amount of the minimum benefit.’ 
Community case-law 
14 The circumstance of the case falls within the scope of EU law, since it concerns 
the social security legislation applicable in relation to the request for the 
aggregation of contributions at European level, in order to top up to the minimum 
level the ordinary disability allowance destined, under Article 1 of Law 
No 222/84, to be converted automatically to an old-age pension at retirement age, 
provided that the relevant insurance and contribution requirements have been 
satisfied. Moreover, as regards the main proceedings, in the light of the findings of 
fact made at lower instances, and since the social security institution has not 
argued to the contrary, the existence of both the medical condition required in 
order to be eligible for the ordinary disability allowance and the level of income 
necessary to qualify for the top-up to the minimum level, can be regarded as 
undisputed. 
15 For the purposes of Article 52 of Regulation No 883/2004 and the calculation of 
the theoretical amount of the benefit, the applicant is attached to the hybrid 
scheme, with contributions to be considered paid in Switzerland during the period 
from 1991 to 1994, and then in Italy for five years for the period from 1 April 
2002 to 31 March 2012, with contributions credited for the period of 
unemployment from 2012 to 2013. Therefore, the prohibition on the top-up to the 
minimum level provided for by Article 1(16) of Law No 335/95 does not apply to 
the applicant. 
16 That being the case, for the purposes of eligibility for the top-up, the requirement 
as regards contributions due and accrued in Italy is still to be determined. 
17 To that end, Article 58 of Regulation No 883/04 and its effects on national law 
must be taken into account. As previously stated, that provision distinguishes 
between the contributions required to be eligible for the top-up to the minimum 
level for workers with periods of insurance completed solely in Italy and workers 
with periods of insurance completed partly in Italy and partly in other countries of 
the European Union (including Switzerland, under the agreement on the free 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-633/24 
 
6  
movement of persons between Switzerland and the EU – as of 1 April 2012 – 
together with Implementing Regulation No 987/09 […]). 
18 Accordingly, the Corte di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) intends 
to ask the Court of Justice of the European Union whether a correct interpretation 
of Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 precludes national legislation from 
providing – in the event of a request for the aggregation of contributions accrued 
partly in another Community country (in this case Switzerland, prior to 
31 December 1995) and partly in the national Member State (in this case Italy, 
after 1 January 1996) – as a prerequisite for topping up the ordinary disability 
allowance to the minimum level, a number of years of contributions (in this case, 
10 years, under Article 8(2) of Law No 153 of 1969) which exceed the number 
required of those who claim the same benefit while having accrued all of their 
contributions in the Member State of residence, in this case Italy (namely five 
years, under Article 4 of Law No 222/84), contrary to the principle of the free 
movement of workers within the European Union. 
19 The Court of Justice has pointed out that Article 58 of Regulation (EC) 
No 883/2004 provides that the recipient of old-age benefits may not be provided 
with a benefit which is less than the minimum benefit fixed by the legislation of 
the Member State of residence and that the competent institution of that State 
must, if necessary, pay him or her a supplement equal to the difference between 
the total of the benefits due and the amount of the minimum benefit (judgment of 
the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 December 2019, Antonio Bocero Torrico and 
Jörg Paul Konrad Fritz Bode v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and 
Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social, C-398/18 and C-428/18, 
EU:C:2019:1050, paragraph 27, on early retirement pensions). 
20 In paragraph 40 of that judgment, the Court of Justice recalls that the principle of 
equal treatment, as laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 883/2004, prohibits 
not only overt discrimination based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social 
security schemes but also all covert forms of discrimination which, through the 
application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result (see, by 
analogy, judgment of 22 June 2011, Landtová, C-399/09, EU:C:2011:415, 
paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). Lastly, according to paragraph 41 of the 
same judgment, conditions imposed by national law must be regarded as indirectly 
discriminatory where, although applicable irrespective of nationality, they affect 
essentially migrant workers or where the great majority of those affected are 
migrant workers, where they are applicable without distinction but can more 
easily be satisfied by national workers than by migrant workers, or where there is 
a risk that they may operate to the particular detriment of the latter (judgment of 
22 June 2011, Landtová, C-399/09, EU:C:2011:415, paragraph 45 and the case-
law cited). 
21 It also must be borne in mind that the provisions of Regulation No 883/2004 do 
not set up a common scheme of social security, but have the sole objective of 
ensuring coordination between the various national schemes which continue to 
SOVISSO 
 
7 
exist. Thus, according to settled case-law, Member States retain the power to 
organise their own social security schemes (see, inter alia, judgments of 
21 February 2013, Salgado González, C-282/11, EU:C:2013:86, paragraph 35, 
and of 7 December 2017, Zaniewicz-Dybeck, C-189/16, EU:C:2017:946, 
paragraph 38). 
22 Since Regulation No 883/2004 (and previously Regulation No 1408/71) do not 
determine the conditions governing the constitution of periods of employment or 
insurance, those conditions, as is apparent both from Article 1(r) of Regulation 
No 1408/71 and from Article 1(t) of Regulation No 883/2004, are defined 
exclusively by the legislation of the Member State under which the periods in 
question are completed (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 January 2005, Salgado 
Alonso, C-306/03, EU:C:2005:44, paragraph 30). 
23 However, although it is for the legislation of each Member State to determine, 
inter alia, the conditions for entitlement to benefits, the Member States must 
nevertheless comply with EU law and, in particular, the provisions of the FEU 
Treaty giving every citizen of the European Union the right to move and reside 
within the territory of the Member States (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgments 
of 21 February 2013, Salgado González, C-282/11, EU:C:2013:86, paragraphs 36 
and 37, and of 23 January 2020, Bundesagentur für Arbeit, C-29/19, 
EU:C:2020:36, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). 
24 In order to guarantee that compliance, Article 45 of Regulation No 1408/71, as 
reproduced, essentially, in Article 6 of Regulation No 883/2004, provides that 
where the legislation of a Member State makes the acquisition, retention or 
recovery of the right to benefits subject to the completion of periods of insurance, 
the competent institution of that Member State is to take account of the periods of 
insurance completed under the legislation of any other Member State as if they 
had been completed under the legislation which it applies. In other words – as 
previously stated – the periods of insurance completed under the legislation of 
various Member States must be aggregated (judgment of 7 December 2017, 
Zaniewicz-Dybeck, C-189/16. EU:C:2017:946, paragraph 41). 
25 Thus, Article 45 of Regulation No 1408/71, like Article 6 of Regulation 
No 883/2004, implements the principle of aggregation of insurance, residence or 
employment periods as laid down in Article 48 TFEU. This is one of the basic 
principles governing European Union coordination of social security schemes in 
the Member States, its purpose being to ensure that exercise of the right to 
freedom of movement does not have the effect of depriving workers of social 
security advantages to which they would have been entitled if they had spent their 
entire working life in only one Member State. Such a consequence might 
discourage European Union workers from exercising their right to freedom of 
movement and would therefore constitute an obstacle to that freedom (see, to that 
effect, judgment of 3 March 2011, Tomaszewska, C-440/09, EU:C:2011:114, 
paragraph 30 and the case-law cited). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 17. 9. 2024 – CASE C-633/24 
 
8  
Grounds for the reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 
TFEU 
26 In the light of those facts, it is necessary to determine, for the interpretation of 
Article 58 of Regulation No 883/2004, whether the top-up to the minimum level 
may be awarded in the event of a request for the aggregation of contributions 
accrued in several Member States of the European Union (including those to 
which EU legislation has been extended, such as Switzerland), at least under the 
same conditions as those provided for citizens residing in Italy, who have accrued 
all of the contributions required to qualify for the top-up of the allowance and/or 
pension to the minimum level (namely five years of contributions, under 
Articles 1 and 4 of Law No 222/84). 
27 In conclusion, it is necessary to ask the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, 
under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the 
following question: 
‘Is national legislation that, in the event of a request for the aggregation of 
contributions accrued in several Member States of the European Union, makes the 
statutory minimum amount of ordinary disability allowance contingent on having 
accrued 10 years of contributions in Italy, pursuant to Article 8(2) of Law 
No 153/69, unlike someone who has accrued all of his or her contributions in 
Italy, who is awarded the statutory minimum amount with only five years of 
contributions (three of which must be in the last five years), under Articles 1 and 4 
of Law No 222/84, contrary to EU legislation, in particular the provisions of 
Article 58 of Regulation [EC] No 883/2004?’ 
28 As a result of the request that the Court of Justice deliver a preliminary ruling, the 
present proceedings are stayed. 
29 […] [anonymisation] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS 
The Court requests a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European 
Union on the question concerning the interpretation of EU law, indicated in the 
grounds of the present order, under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union and Article 295 of the [Italian] Code of Civil Procedure. 
[…] [procedure] 
Decided in Rome, […] on 9 July 2024. 
The President 
[…]