With the measure, the stoats rejected the appeal by the second partner (cohabiting with the de cuius) who had been recognized as only 20% of the amount of the survivor’s pension. The remaining 80%, in fact, had been attributed to the first wife, despite the fact that one had intervened divorce decree.
The judges relied mainly on a division criterion based on the duration of the two reports. They therefore believed that this primary principle was to be considered confirmed also following the Cirinnà Law as the latter would have recognized only a minimum protection to the de facto cohabiting partner in need economically. In this case, the man had been married for 36 years: 4 children were born from the marriage. He later lived together for 16 years, in an offspring relationship. The difference in the duration of the two unions justified the difference in distribution of the survivor’s pension shares.
Reversibility pension: the nature behind the division
The justification for these criteria must be found in the nature of the survivor’s pension intended as a continuation of the function of economic support performed during life and transmitted to the heirs who are entitled. It therefore does not represent a means of economic equalization.
You may also be interested to read:
Survivors’ pensions, reduced amount if working
After how many years of marriage is the right to the survivor’s pension eligible?