The Proportionality of Punishment in Protecting the Citizen’s Income: Analysis of Constitutional Court Judgment No. 35 of 2026
The Constitutional Court has recently issued judgment no. 35 of 2026, a ruling destined to shape jurisprudence in the fields of economic criminal law and social welfare. The decision, published on March 20, 2026, following the public hearing held on February 9, examined the constitutional legitimacy of the provisions sanctioning the undue receipt of the Citizen’s Income (Reddito di Cittadinanza). At the heart of the debate was the compatibility of the prescribed sentencing range for this offense with the fundamental constitutional principles of equality and the rehabilitative purpose of punishment.
The referring judge had raised concerns regarding the severity of the penalty, which provides for imprisonment ranging from two to six years. The objection centered on an alleged disproportion compared to other offenses involving fraud against the public administration. According to the lower court’s reasoning, such a high minimum sentence risked violating Article 27 of the Constitution, which establishes that punishments must not consist of treatments contrary to human dignity and must aim at the rehabilitation of the convicted person. Additionally, Article 3 was invoked, highlighting how differing sanctions for similar conduct could generate unjustified disparities in treatment among citizens.
The Constitutional Court rejected these arguments, declaring the constitutional questions unfounded. In its reasoning, the judges explained that judicial review of the proportionality of punishment cannot extend to substituting the legislature’s assessment in matters of criminal policy, except in cases of manifest unreasonableness. In this specific instance, the Court found that the legislature’s choice to prescribe a stringent custodial sentence was supported by a constitutionally compatible rationale. The Citizen’s Income, being a structural measure of broad scope with periodic disbursements, requires a complex system of controls and criminal protection capable of ensuring the sustainability of public resources allocated to social inclusion.
A central aspect of the decision concerns the comparison with similar offenses. The Court observed that it is not permissible to automatically equate the offense related to the Citizen’s Income with the crime of undue receipt of public benefits under the criminal code. The two provisions protect legal interests through different mechanisms: while the codified offense often requires an actual damaging event and applies to specific monetary thresholds, the violation of rules governing access to the benefit constitutes an offense of concrete danger. The mere creation of conditions for undue access, through false statements or intentional omissions, is sufficient to constitute the unlawful act, justifying a preventive and decisive criminal response.
Furthermore, it was noted that comparison with aggravated fraud against the State cannot be used to allege excessive severity. The sentencing range for fraud involving public funds actually prescribes even higher penalties, which undermines the argument that the sanction for the Citizen’s Income is anomalous within the current legal framework. The Court emphasized that the conduct is narrowly and precisely defined, punishing only those who knowingly alter the requirements for access within a well-defined procedural context, thereby avoiding the risk of arbitrary application of the norm.
The ruling nevertheless preserves the role of the trial judge in determining the specific sentence. While the statutory minimum is upheld, the legal system provides for mechanisms such as mitigating circumstances and conditional suspension of sentence, which allow the penalty to be tailored to the specifics of the individual case. This balance enables the maintenance of a general deterrent function without precluding the possibility of individualized treatment, thus respecting the rehabilitative purpose of punishment.
In conclusion, judgment no. 35 of 2026 confirms the validity of the current sanctioning framework, reaffirming that the protection of public assets allocated to welfare requires effective criminal instruments. The decision highlights how the balance between social protection needs and individual guarantees must be achieved through a comprehensive evaluation of the legislation, taking into account the nature of the benefit and its distribution mechanisms. For legal practitioners, the ruling provides a clear criterion: the severity of a penalty is not inherently unconstitutional if it responds to a logic of protecting primary public interests, provided that the judge retains the ability to adapt the punitive response to the specific circumstances of the offense.
