JUDGMENT NO. 159

YEAR 2025

ITALIAN REPUBLIC

IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Composed of:

President: Giovanni AMOROSO;

Judges: Francesco VIGANÒ, Luca ANTONINI, Stefano PETITTI, Angelo BUSCEMA, Emanuela NAVARRETTA, Maria Rosaria SAN GIORGIO, Filippo PATRONI GRIFFI, Marco D’ALBERTI, Giovanni PITRUZZELLA, Antonella SCIARRONE ALIBRANDI, Massimo LUCIANI, Maria Alessandra SANDULLI, Roberto Nicola CASSINELLI, Francesco Saverio MARINI,
has rendered the following

JUDGMENT

in the constitutional legitimacy review proceedings concerning Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of Law No. 213 of December 30, 2023 (State Budget Law for the financial year 2024 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2024-2026), initiated by the Ordinary Court of Milan, Labour Section, in the proceedings between Avvocati per niente onlus (APN) and others and the National Social Security Institute (INPS), by order of October 23, 2024, registered under no. 217 of the register of orders for 2024 and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 48, first special series, of 2024.

Having seen the statements of appearance of INPS, the Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (ASGI) aps, and APN, as well as the intervention of the President of the Council of Ministers;

having heard Judge Rapporteur Emanuela Navarretta in the public hearing of June 11, 2025;

having heard the attorneys Alberto Guariso for ASGI aps and APN, Antonino Sgroi for INPS, and the State Attorney Fabrizio Urbani Neri for the President of the Council of Ministers;

deliberated in the Chamber of Council on June 23, 2025;

Judge Luca Antonini designated for drafting the judgment.

Having considered the facts

1.– By order registered under no. 217 of the register of orders for 2024, the Ordinary Court of Milan, Labour Section, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of Law No. 213 of December 30, 2023 (State Budget Law for the financial year 2024 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2024-2026), insofar as it does not extend to female employees with fixed-term employment contracts and to those with domestic employment contracts the exemption from the payment of the social security contribution share for invalidity, old age, and survivors, provided for the years 2024-2026 in favour of female employees with permanent employment contracts, who are mothers of three or more children, until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen, and, for the year 2024, also for the benefit of the same female employees who are mothers of two children, until the youngest child reaches the age of ten.

The referring court deems that the contested regulation, by excluding the aforementioned categories of female employees, infringes upon Articles 3, 31, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the latter in relation to both Clause 4, point 1, of the Annex (Framework Agreement on fixed-term work) to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of June 28, 1999, concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, and to the following provisions: i) Article 11, paragraph 1, letter a), of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of November 25, 2003, concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents; ii) Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29, 2004, on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC; Article 12, paragraph 1, letter a), of Directive (EU) 2011/98 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 13, 2011, on a single application procedure for a single permit for the residence and work of third-country nationals in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers who reside legally in a Member State; iii) Article 16, paragraph 1, letter a), of Directive (EU) 2021/1883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 20, 2021, on the conditions for entry and residence of third-country nationals intending to take up employment as highly qualified workers, and repealing Council Directive 2009/50/EC.

2.– The referring judge reports that, by an application pursuant to Article 28 of Legislative Decree No. 150 of September 1, 2011 (Supplementary provisions to the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the reduction and simplification of civil cognitive proceedings, pursuant to Article 54 of Law No. 69 of June 18, 2009), M. N., C. C., F. B., and E. B., together with Avvocati per niente onlus (APN) and the Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (ASGI) aps, requested a finding that the conduct of the National Social Security Institute (INPS) was discriminatory. The latter, in fact, allegedly failed to apply the contribution exemption—provided for by Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of Law No. 213 of 2023—also in favour of the applicants (female employees with fixed-term contracts and mothers of two or more children), as well as for the benefit of all female employees with fixed-term contracts or domestic employment contracts, who are in the same subjective conditions.

As a consequence of such finding, and subject to the possible raising of questions of constitutional legitimacy of the cited norms, the plaintiffs requested that any necessary measure be issued against INPS to remove the discrimination and cease its effects, as well as the adoption, where appropriate, of a removal plan, pursuant to Article 28, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 150 of 2011.

In particular, the applicants requested the judge to: a) order INPS to reimburse the amounts withheld from the salaries accrued by the applicant female employees from January 1, 2024, and to notify their employers of the need not to pay said amounts to the social security institution for the subsequent months following the judgment and for the entire period of application of the exemption; b) order INPS to reimburse all female employees with fixed-term contracts or domestic employment contracts for the sums withheld from January 1, 2024, as social security contributions for invalidity, old age, and survivors (IVS) and paid to the social security institution; c) order INPS to amend its circular of January 31, 2024, no. 27 (Article 1, subsections 180 to 182, of Law No. 213 of December 30, 2023, concerning the "State Budget Law for the financial year 2024 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2024-2026”. Exemption from payment of social security contributions due by female employees with permanent employment contracts who are mothers of three or more children. Operational and accounting instructions: reference) and any other relevant communication, giving public notice on its institutional website; d) order INPS to pay, pursuant to Article 614-bis of the Code of Civil Procedure, the sum of EUR 100.00 for each day of delay in fulfilling the obligation, starting from the ninetieth day following the notification of the forthcoming judgment; e) order the publication of the latter on the institutional website of INPS and/or in one or more national newspapers.

The referring court reports that, in the opinion of the plaintiff's defence, the discrimination consists in the violation of the obligation of equal treatment in employment conditions between mothers employed on a fixed-term basis and those on a permanent basis, established by Clause No. 4, point 1, of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, as well as in indirect discrimination against foreign female employees, who are statistically present, among those with fixed-term and domestic employment contracts, in a significantly higher percentage than Italian female employees. Finally, the applicants allege the violation of Articles 3 and 31 of the Constitution.

INPS appeared in the referred proceedings, asserting the lack of active legitimacy of the applicant female employees and the inadmissibility of the application.

3.– The Court of Milan, after rejecting the preliminary objections raised by the social security institution, raised questions of constitutional legitimacy regarding Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of Law No. 213 of 2023, justifying, first, the relevance of the challenges.

Firstly, it clarified that the plaintiffs, female employees on fixed-term contracts, suffered the ordinary social security withholdings established by law, without being able to benefit from the contribution exemption enjoyed by those with permanent employment contracts.

Secondly, it emphasized that, by adhering to the cited norms, the INPS circular, the modification of which is requested by the two applicant associations, unequivocally excludes female employees on fixed-term contracts and domestic workers from the contribution exemption.

4.– Regarding the not manifest groundlessness, the referring judge highlighted that the exclusion of the aforementioned categories of female employees from the contested norms entails a violation of the constitutional principles specified below.

In particular, the omission to refer to female employees with fixed-term subordinate employment contracts conflicts with: Article 3 of the Constitution, as, under equal conditions regarding the children, the less favourable regime would lack any objective and reasonable justification; Article 31 of the Constitution, since the discrimination results in an unreasonable prejudice to motherhood and large families; Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to Clause 4, point 1, of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, because it prohibits, concerning working conditions, treating fixed-term workers less favourably than comparable permanent workers; finally, Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to certain European directives (Directives 2021/1883/EU, 2011/98/EU, 2004/38/EC, 2003/109/EC) which establish equal treatment, as regards working conditions, between EU citizens and third-country nationals.

In the first three cases, the violation constitutes direct discrimination between fixed-term and permanent female employees; in the last case, the discrimination would, instead, be indirect and related to nationality, given that the norms, although apparently neutral, would particularly prejudice foreign female employees, who are statistically holders of fixed-term contracts in a significantly higher percentage than female employees of Italian citizenship.

Regarding the exclusion of mothers employed under domestic contracts from the benefit, the challenges allege the violation of the same constitutional and supra-national parameters, with the exclusion only of that concerning Clause 4, point 1, of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC.

5.– By a document filed on December 17, 2024, the President of the Council of Ministers intervened in the proceedings, represented and defended by the Attorney General's Office, requesting that the questions be declared inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded.

Procedurally, the Attorney General argued for the inadmissibility of the challenges, as they were "expressly aimed at obtaining a manipulative additive judgment outside the cases provided for by constitutional jurisprudence." In the absence of a single constitutionally required solution, the Court could not intervene by extending the pool of beneficiaries of the contribution exemption, which is the subject of the contested norms.

Furthermore, the referring judge allegedly failed to attempt a constitutionally-oriented interpretation, in order to regulate the extent of the recognized exemption.

On the merits, the Attorney General considers the questions unfounded for several reasons.

Firstly, the measure is not structural but experimental, so as not to create a permanent differentiation in treatment between fixed-term and permanent female employees. The subjective and temporal limitation of the exemption would in any case be explained by the scarcity of available financial resources, "which allowed, in this first phase of application of the benefit (within the overall public finance manoeuvre adopted with the 2024 Budget Law), the contribution exemption to be enjoyed only by the current pool."

Conversely, extending the benefit also "to female employees with fixed-term employment contracts or domestic employment contracts, without conditionality or limits on the contingent nature of the pool of beneficiaries, would have compromised and would compromise the effectiveness of the benefit, considering the constraint imposed by securing the necessary financial coverage, pursuant to Article 81 of the Constitution."

Secondly, the state defence highlights that, in the 2025 budget bill, currently under approval at the time of filing the intervention document, a re-modulation of the exemption is planned, with an extension in time and an expansion of the pool of beneficiary mothers to fixed-term female employees.

Finally, as regards domestic work, the Attorney General denies that such employment is entirely comparable to dependent employment and emphasizes that the contribution rate payable by domestic female employees is already reduced in itself, being "around 5%."

The exclusion from the benefit in question would therefore be motivated by the existence of a social security scheme that is already more favourable than that applicable to all dependent employees and "would therefore not result in any disparity of treatment, as situations that are different are treated differently."

6.– In the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, some of the parties from the referred proceedings appeared.

6.1.– INPS requested that the questions be declared partially inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded.

6.1.1.– Procedurally, it noted that the four female employees did not demonstrate possessing the requirements to benefit from the contribution exemption provided for by the contested norms, in the event of acceptance of the challenges, which would render the questions irrelevant concerning their position.

In particular, one of the applicants in the main proceedings allegedly produced only a payslip from 2023, failing to demonstrate that, in the event of acceptance of the constitutional legitimacy questions, the contribution exemption would have applied to her, since the contested norms apply starting from 2024.

The other three applicants, although shown to have worked during 2024, allegedly failed to provide evidence of either the actual withholding of the contribution share due by the employee by the employer, or the payment made to the social security institution. Furthermore, one of them failed to produce any certification regarding her status as a mother of two or more children.

As further evidence of the alleged irrelevance of the questions, INPS's defence also observes that, according to constant jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation, the only party entitled to act for the eventual recovery of undue contributions would be the employer, as they are legally obliged to pay the contribution share also due by the employee.

On the merits, the social security institution's defence starts from the premise that the social security system guarantees workers the payment of social security benefits even in the event of non-payment of contributions (Article 2116 of the Civil Code). Consequently, it argues that the contribution relief granted to working mothers with permanent contracts constitutes an exception to the general rules, resulting in the transfer of the unpaid contribution to the community.

The potential extension of the exemption to the excluded categories would therefore result, according to the social security institution, in the inadmissible extension of a privilege, to the detriment of the community.

6.1.2.– On May 19, 2025, INPS filed an amplifying memorandum, in which it insisted that the Court declare the raised questions inadmissible and, in any event, unfounded.

To supplement the defences presented, the social security institution reported the entry into force of Law No. 207 of December 30, 2024 (State Budget Law for the financial year 2025 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2025-2027), whose Article 1, subsections 219 and 220, re-modulated the contribution exemption provided for by the contested norms.

Furthermore, the social security institution presented some data elaborated by its statistical office, which quantify the costs resulting from the acceptance of the constitutional legitimacy questions at EUR 218 million for 2024 and EUR 61.4 million for each of the years 2025 and 2026.

These costs would have to be added to those connected with other types of relief granted by the legislator for the same period, concerning the hiring of female employees, "namely the relief provided for and regulated by Article 23 of Decree-Law No. 60/2024, converted with modifications by Law No. 95/2024, known as 'Women's Bonus'," which introduces a total exemption from the contribution due by private employers, for the period from September 1, 2024, to December 31, 2025, for a duration of 24 months, if they hire women on permanent employment contracts.

It also recalled "Article 29 of Decree-Law No. 19/2024, converted with modifications by Law No. 56/2024, which in paragraph 15 provides for a total exemption from the contribution due by the domestic employer, in case of hiring or conversion to a permanent contract of domestic employment contracts for the position of assistant to elderly subjects, aged at least eighty years, already entitled to the attendance allowance."

Finally, it reiterated that it would be impossible to attribute the contribution exemption subject to the contested norms to the category of social security or welfare benefits, as it cannot be considered as aimed at alleviating a situation of primary need for female employees.

Therefore, faced with "a privilege that exempts certain categories of female employees from financing the mandatory social security system, it appears entirely legitimate to recognize the legislator's discretion in identifying those categories of subjects for whom this benefit can be introduced."

Hence, according to the social security institution, the questions are unfounded, also following the recent Judgment of this Court No. 40 of 2025, which excluded a violation of Articles 3 and 31 of the Constitution, in the case of the non-extension, to non-EU mother applicants for international protection, of the temporary allowance for minor children, provided for by Decree-Law No. 79 of June 8, 2021 (Urgent measures regarding the temporary allowance for minor children), converted, with modifications, into Law No. 112 of July 30, 2021.

As regards the obligations imposed by EU law, INPS distinguishes between the alleged violation of Clause 4 of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC and the alleged conflict with the directives on working conditions.

On the first aspect, the social security institution's defence highlights that Clause 4 concerns employment conditions and cannot refer to national legislative provisions on social security.

On the second aspect, INPS notes that none of the directives cited by the referring court concerns the relief subject to the contested norms, with the consequent exclusion of the discrimination evoked.

6.2.– Two of the applicants in the main proceedings, APN and ASGI aps, also appeared in the proceedings, insisting on the acceptance of the raised questions.

The two associations highlighted that female employees belonging to the excluded categories would have enjoyed—if the contribution exemption had been provided for their benefit—a higher net salary than that perceived, equal to the contribution share, borne by them in the periods considered by the legislator.

To support their position, APN and ASGI aps first referred to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on indirect discrimination, including, in particular, the recent Judgment of July 29, 2024, in joined cases C-184/22 and C-185/2022, IK and CM.

The ruling, although delivered on the matter of part-time work, established principles also applicable to the issues at hand.

On the one hand, it affirmed that Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on part-time work of June 6, 1997, annexed to Council Directive 97/81/EC of December 15, 1997, concerning the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP, and ETUC—which prohibits disparity of treatment to the detriment of part-time workers and which corresponds to Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work—constitutes a principle of EU law that cannot be interpreted restrictively.

On the other hand, based on the reconstruction by the cited associations, the Court of Justice found indirect discrimination, which prejudices female workers, due to the "statistically higher presence of female workers among holders of a part-time contract."

On this basis, the two associations consider that a similar indirect discrimination, detrimental to foreign female employees due to nationality, emerges with regard to the regulation contested by the Milan court. Statistical data would demonstrate their greater presence in both fixed-term and domestic work.

Furthermore, no objective reasons emerge to support the different treatment afforded to the excluded categories.

Regarding the domestic parameters (Articles 3 and 31 of the Constitution), the defence of the private parties asserts the lack of any reasonable justification related to the rationale of the contested regulation, capable of excluding the violation of Article 3 of the Constitution.

The measure adopted by the legislator would not pursue any legitimate aim in relation to the excluded contracts and, therefore, would be unconstitutional, insofar as it limits the pool of beneficiary working mothers.

7.– By documents filed on December 16 and 17, 2024, respectively, the opinions of two associations representing workers' interests, the Professional and Union Association (ANIEF) and the Association Comma 2-Lavoro è dignità (Labour is Dignity), were presented—and subsequently admitted by Presidential Decree of April 30, 2025, pursuant to Article 6 of the Supplementary Provisions for proceedings before the Constitutional Court—supporting the merits of the questions raised by the Court of Milan.

8.– At the public hearing of June 11, 2025, the Attorney General's Office and the parties' defence insisted on the conclusions set out in their defensive briefs.

Having considered the law

1.– With the order cited above (reg. ord. no. 217 of 2024), the Ordinary Court of Milan, Labour Section, raises questions of constitutional legitimacy concerning Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of Law No. 213 of 2023, insofar as it does not extend to female employees with fixed-term employment contracts and to those with domestic employment contracts the exemption from the payment of the social security contribution share for invalidity, old age, and survivors, provided for the years 2024-2026 in favour of female employees with permanent employment contracts, who are mothers of three or more children, until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen, and, for the year 2024, also for the benefit of the same female employees who are mothers of two children, until the youngest child reaches the age of ten.

The referring court deems that the contested regulation, by not including female employees with fixed-term contracts, violates Articles 3, 31, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the latter in relation to Clause 4, point 1, of the Annex to Directive 1999/70/EC, resulting in direct discrimination.

Furthermore, the cited regulation results in indirect discrimination, related to nationality, in conflict with Article 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, in relation to Article 11, paragraph 1, letter a), of Directive 2003/109/EC, Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC, Article 12, paragraph 1, letter a), of Directive 2011/98/EU, and Article 16, paragraph 1, letter a), of Directive 2021/1883/EU.

The same type of indirect discrimination is then found with regard to the exclusion, from the scope of application of Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of Law No. 213 of 2023, of female employees who are mothers with domestic employment contracts; an exclusion with reference to which a violation of Articles 3 and 31 of the Constitution is also lamented.

2.– Both the Attorney General's Office and the defence of INPS raised objections of inadmissibility.

2.1.– In particular, INPS argued that the questions are irrelevant under two aspects.

The four female employees who brought the action in the referred proceedings did not demonstrate possessing the requirements to benefit from the contribution exemption provided for by the contested norms, should the questions be upheld.

Furthermore, in disputes concerning undue contributions, the only party entitled to bring an action for undue payment (condictio indebiti) would be the employer, as they are also responsible for paying the share due by the employee. Therefore, the potential finding of merit of the questions would not allow the referring court to grant the related claims made by the female employees.

2.2.– Both objections are unfounded.

2.2.1.– Regarding the first point, it should be noted that the referring judge has illustrated, in a non-implausible manner, the reasons why the four female employees would possess the requirements to access the contribution exemption, should this Court extend the subjective scope of application of the regulation to holders of fixed-term contracts.

In any case, in the main proceedings, the individual actions of the working mothers are added to the collective actions promoted by the associations, which is sufficient to ground the relevance of the questions, as the Court cannot separate the assessment concerning this aspect ratione personarum, declaring the questions inadmissible only where they concern some of the applicants (Judgment No. 44 of 2020).

2.2.2.– For analogous reasons, related to the cumulation of claims made in the main proceedings, the second objection is also unfounded.

In fact, in the referred proceedings, claims other than the mere condictio indebiti were advanced, with reference to which the legitimacy of the plaintiffs was not contested by the social security institution and was implicitly admitted by the referring judge.

This appears sufficient to justify the relevance of the questions.

3.– Turning to the procedural objections raised by the Attorney General's Office, it is necessary to examine, first of all, the one according to which the additive intervention requested from this Court would have a markedly manipulative character, encroaching upon the discretionary sphere reserved to the legislator, as it is aimed at introducing corrective interventions in a regulation that presents strong peculiarities.

The objection, unfounded in its radicality, nevertheless signals a problematic knot connected to the multiplicity of regulatory interventions that have followed over time, which must be reconstructed in the following terms.

4.– Preliminarily, it must be considered that the norms that are the subject of these questions, which establish a regulation applicable in the three-year period 2024-2026, have been supplemented by subsequent regulations, having an integrative function for the two-year period 2025-2026, and a function of setting the permanent regime, starting from 2027.

It should be specified in this regard that such regulatory interventions do not require the return of the case files to the referring court.

According to the constant jurisprudence of this Court, the supervening law that partially affects the norm whose constitutional legitimacy is questioned, leaving the normative core subject to challenge substantially unchanged and not altering the aspects of constitutional illegitimacy raised by the referring court, does not require the return of the files (inter alia, Judgments No. 215 of 2023, No. 30 of 2021, and No. 203 of 2016).

In the present case, the contested norms have not been amended, but only supplemented, for the subsequent years, by further provisions benefiting even only one category of working mothers, those on fixed-term contracts, whose exclusion is lamented in the challenges.

5.– The overall regulatory framework must now be reconstructed.

5.1.– Turning to the contested norms, the first is found in Article 1, subsection 180, of Law No. 213 of 2023, which, for the pay periods from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2026, provided for a total exemption without income limits, but within the maximum annual limit of three thousand euros, pro-rated on a monthly basis, from the payment of the social security contribution share for invalidity, old age, and survivors due by the employee in favour only of female employees with permanent employment contracts, if they are mothers of three or more children, until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen.

The provision in the subsequent subsection 181 of the same Article 1, also contested, is added, which recognized "on an experimental basis," for the pay periods from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, a total exemption without income limits exclusively for the benefit of female employees with permanent employment contracts, if they are mothers of two children, until the month the youngest child reaches the age of ten.

It should, however, be specified, from the point of view of systematic classification, that Article 1, subsection 15, of Law No. 213 of 2023 provided, for 2024, regarding all dependent employment relationships, not only permanent but also fixed-term, with the sole exception of domestic work, a general, basic exemption of social security contributions due by the employee of six or seven percentage points, depending on the taxable salary received by the employee, provided that the latter does not exceed certain thresholds.

Pursuant to the aforementioned provision, in fact, "[o]n an exceptional basis, for the pay periods from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024, for dependent employment relationships, excluding domestic employment relationships, an exemption is granted, without effect on the thirteenth-month instalment, on the share of social security contributions for invalidity, old age, and survivors due by the employee of 6 percentage points, provided that the taxable salary, pro-rated on a monthly basis for thirteen months, does not exceed the monthly amount of 2,692 euros, net of the thirteenth-month instalment. The exemption referred to in the first period is increased, without effect on the thirteenth-month instalment, by a further percentage point, provided that the taxable salary, pro-rated on a monthly basis for thirteen months, does not exceed the monthly amount of 1,923 euros, net of the thirteenth-month instalment. Taking into account the exceptional nature of the measure referred to in this subsection, the contribution rate for pension benefits remains unchanged."

It should also be noted that, as clarified by INPS circular no. 27 of 2024, "the exemption referred to in Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of the 2024 Budget Law, is structurally alternative to the exemption on the share of social security contributions for invalidity, old age, and survivors (IVS share) due by the employee provided for in Article 1, subsection 15, of the same law. [...] Where the legitimizing prerequisites for the application of both measures exist, they can only be substantially applied alternatively to each other."

The same circular notes that, for monthly salaries of 2,692 euros, the maximum contribution burden that can be borne by the female employee, assuming a contribution rate of 9.19 per cent, is equal to 247.39 euros. This means that female employees, whether on permanent or fixed-term contracts, to whom Article 1, subsection 15, of Law No. 213 of 2023 applies, benefit, assuming the same conditions of rate and salary, from a contribution exemption, in the amount of approximately 161 euros per month.

5.2.– During the pendency of these proceedings, Article 1, subsection 219, of Law No. 207 of 2024 was introduced, which partially extended the contribution exemption in favour of working mothers, limited to the years 2025-2026, and provided for a permanent regulation starting from 2027.

Specifically, for the aforementioned two-year period, the pool of beneficiaries was extended to all dependent female employees, excluding domestic employment relationships, as well as self-employed female employees, who receive at least one of various types of income (from self-employment, ordinary accounting business income, simplified accounting business income, or partnership income) and have not opted for the flat-rate scheme.

The new contribution exemption recognized took on a completely different scope from that provided for by the contested norms, since it was linked to an income limit, thus avoiding having a regressive effect, as in the case of the exemption provided for the year 2024, which de facto favoured the wealthiest individuals, given that the higher the salary, the higher the exemption (although within the maximum annual limit of three thousand euros, equal to 250 euros per month).

The new exemption, which is contained within the spending limit of 300 million euros per year, as newly regulated, was, in fact, linked only to working mothers whose taxable salary or income for social security purposes does not exceed EUR 40,000 per year.

Finally, it is a partial exemption, it being understood that its actual measure, the methods of attribution, and the procedures to be followed, to account for the spending limit, were delegated to a decree of the Minister of Labour and Social Policies, to be adopted in agreement with the Minister of Economy and Finance, within thirty days of the entry into force of Law No. 207 of 2024.

Within these limits, the benefit was granted to the aforementioned categories of female employees, if they are mothers of two or more children, until the month the youngest child reaches the age of ten, relating to the years 2025-2026, and, if they are mothers of three or more children, until the month the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen, starting from 2027.

5.3.– Subsequently, after the same hearing, Article 6 of Decree-Law No. 95 of June 30, 2025 (Urgent provisions for the financing of economic activities and businesses, as well as social and infrastructure, transport and local authority interventions), converted, with modifications, into Law No. 118 of August 8, 2025, further changed the regulatory framework.

The cited article, in fact, amended Law No. 207 of 2024, eliminating the reference to the year 2025 from subsection 219. For that year, the contribution exemption provided therein was replaced by the granting "to dependent female employees, excluding domestic employment relationships, and to self-employed female employees [...] with two children and until the month the second child reaches the age of ten [of] a non-taxable and non-contributory sum equal to 40 euros per month, for each month or fraction of a month during which the employment relationship or self-employment activity is in force." The same sum of 40 euros per month was then granted to female employees falling within the aforementioned categories who have "more than two children [...] until the month the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen, for each month or fraction of a month during which the employment relationship or self-employment activity is in force."

Both benefits remain subject to the existence of a salary or income taxable for social security purposes not exceeding EUR 40,000 per year and are conditional upon the submission of an application.

5.4.– Ultimately, looking at the categories of female employees concerned by these proceedings, the framework resulting from the complex sequence of regulatory interventions can be summarized as follows.

Regarding the year 2024, a double regime was created: on the one hand, that of the partial contribution exemption, generalized for both fixed-term and permanent female employees, of six or seven points for salaries not exceeding, respectively, 2,692 and 1,923 euros (Article 1, subsection 15, of Law No. 213 of 2023); on the other hand, however, alternative to the one mentioned above, the regime of total exemption only for female employees with permanent employment contracts, without income limits and up to 3,000 euros, if they are mothers of two children, until the youngest child reaches the age of ten (Article 1, subsection 181, of Law No. 213 of 2023), and, if they are mothers of three or more children, until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen (Article 1, subsection 180, of Law No. 213 of 2023).

As for the year 2025, only permanent female employees are entitled to the total exemption without income limits, if they are mothers of three or more children, until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen (Article 1, subsection 180, of Law No. 213 of 2023). Conversely, fixed-term female employees, who are mothers of two children, until the second child reaches the age of ten (Article 6, subsection 2, first sentence, of Decree-Law No. 95 of 2025, as converted), as well as those with more than two children, until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen (Article 6, subsection 2, second sentence, of the same Decree-Law, as converted), are entitled to the exemption for the sum of 40 euros per month, provided they have an income not exceeding EUR 40,000 per year and apply for the benefit. The same treatment also applies to permanent female employees who have two children, until the second child reaches the age of ten (Article 6, subsection 2, first sentence, of the same Decree-Law, as converted).

Furthermore, for the year 2026, the total exemption without income limits provided for permanent female employees with three or more children, until the youngest child reaches the age of eighteen (Article 1, subsection 180, of Law No. 213 of 2023), is supplemented by a partial exemption, in the amount to be indicated by a forthcoming interministerial decree and always in the presence of an income not exceeding EUR 40,000 per year, in favour of fixed-term female employees who have two or more children, until the youngest child reaches the age of ten. The same treatment, also for the year 2026, is granted to permanent female employees who have two children, until the youngest child reaches the age of ten (Article 1, subsection 219, of Law No. 207 of 2024).

Starting from 2027, the legal treatment, regarding the contribution exemption for female employees with dependent employment contracts, is standardized (Article 1, subsection 219, of Law No. 207 of 2024).

The exclusion of female employees who are mothers holding domestic employment contracts from the benefits provided for the three-year period 2024-2026, as well as from the permanent regulation, remains firm.

6.– Having established the above, the questions raised with reference to Articles 3, 31, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution are inadmissible.

The technique of temporary and experimental regulation can certainly be functional to verifying, in relation to available resources, the most adequate configuration of the attributable benefit, taking into account its extent and the possible criteria related to the rationale of the institute: namely, the number of children, their age, the income of the beneficiaries, or others.

However, it cannot be overlooked that the provisions of Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of Law No. 213 of 2023 present several critical issues—in a context of limited resources and in relation to the systematic framework.

Their rationale is not objectively clear.

They introduce a total exemption from contributions that favours the wealthiest categories, given the absence of an income or salary limit and considering only the provision of the maximum cap of 3,000 euros, but they completely exclude the category of mothers with fixed-term contracts; these latter, however, are not entirely overlooked, from a systematic point of view, as they anyway benefit, up to a certain salary threshold, from the general, but partial, contribution exemption referred to in Article 1, subsection 15 of the same law, without, however, taking into consideration the circumstance of their being mothers.

The only category entirely excluded from any benefit is therefore, in reality, within the scope considered above, that of mothers with fixed-term contracts whose monthly taxable salary exceeds 2,692 euros, where, instead, those on permanent contracts who also exceed this amount, given the alternative between the total exemption and the partial exemption referred to in Article 1, subsection 15, of Law No. 213 of 2023, cannot cumulate them and only benefit from the former (equal to a maximum of 250 euros per month).

However, in this overall framework described above, this Court, despite the identified critical issues, is precluded, within the limits of its powers, from intervening to extend the pool of beneficiaries.

Moreover, the fact that the legislator has gradually corrected itself, leading to the substantial equalization of the cases of fixed-term and permanent female employees, is relevant. This is a factual finding of certain relevance, consistent with what was established in the cases decided by this Court with Judgments No. 75 of 2025, No. 262 of 2020, and No. 187 of 2016.

For the reasons stated, the questions concerning the omission to consider—in the contested norms—female employees who are mothers holding fixed-term contracts are inadmissible, in view of the greater discretion that must be recognized to the legislator within a transitional experimental path characterized by gradual corrections, without prejudice to the fact that not every such legislative intervention can, on its own, be considered constitutionally legitimate (Judgment No. 111 of 2024).

7.– Similarly inadmissible are the challenges raised, always with reference to the same constitutional parameters, regarding the exclusion of working mothers with domestic contracts from the contested norms; an exclusion that remained unchanged even in the supervening regulatory framework.

The contributions due to INPS by female employees holding domestic employment contracts fall, in fact, within the scope of a special regulation that presents peculiarities in calculation compared to that concerning other dependent female employees; peculiarities primarily related to the non-entrepreneurial nature of the employers. In particular, the contributions for invalidity, old age, and survivors (IVS share) jointly due (by the employer and the domestic female employee) are lower than those that must be paid in the case of other dependent employment relationships.

The special nature of the social security treatment provided for domestic employment relationships therefore leads to excluding the possibility for this Court to unify the regulation with that provided for other dependent employment contracts.

8.– The declarations of inadmissibility preceding do not, however, exempt this Court from urging the legislator to bring systematic coherence to the entire framework in the crucial path of support for working mothers, in a country where the birth rate is among the lowest in Europe, by identifying structural interventions that have the capacity to fully support motherhood.

9.– For the reasons set out, all the challenges raised with reference to Articles 3, 31, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution are inadmissible.
for these reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares inadmissible the questions of constitutional legitimacy of Article 1, subsections 180 and 181, of Law No. 213 of December 30, 2023 (State Budget Law for the financial year 2024 and multi-year budget for the three-year period 2024-2026), raised, with reference to Articles 3, 31, and 117, first paragraph, of the Constitution, the latter in relation to both Clause 4, point 1, of the Annex (Framework Agreement on fixed-term work) to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of June 28, 1999, concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, and to Article 11, paragraph 1, letter a), of Council Directive 2003/109/EC of November 25, 2003, concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, and to Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 29, 2004, on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, and to Article 12, paragraph 1, letter a), of Directive (EU) 2011/98 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 13, 2011, on a single application procedure for a single permit for the residence and work of third-country nationals in the territory of a Member State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers who reside legally in a Member State, and finally to Article 16, paragraph 1, letter a), of Directive (EU) 2021/1883 of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 20, 2021, on the conditions for entry and residence of third-country nationals intending to take up employment as highly qualified workers, and repealing Council Directive 2009/50/EC, by the Ordinary Court of Milan, Labour Section, with the order cited in the heading.

Thus decided in Rome, at the seat of the Constitutional Court, Palazzo della Consulta, on June 23, 2025.

Signed:

Giovanni AMOROSO, President

Luca ANTONINI, Rapporteur

Igor DI BERNARDINI, Chancellor

Filed in the Chancellery on October 31, 2025

 

The anonymized version conforms, in text, to the original