Citizenship income, it's right not to recognize it for those who have ruined themselves gambling. The ruling of the Constitutional Court
The Basic income (RDC) “is structured in such a way as to not being able to come to the aid of people whoby virtue of gross gaming winnings achieved in the period prior to the request, exceed the income thresholds for access, even if, due to the losses suffered, they are however remained poor»; however, it is not “unreasonable that the legislator has excluded that it is the duty of the Republic to assign the RDC to those who, shortly before, ruined themselves by gambling”.
This is because “it is not poverty from gambling addictionbut rather it is gambling addiction itself that represents one of those de facto obstacles that it is the duty of the Republic to remove”. This is what we read in sentence no. 54 of 2024, filed today, with which the Constitutional Court declared the questions of constitutional legitimacy raised in reference to the articles unfounded. 3, second paragraph, and 25 of the Constitution on the provisions of legislative decree no. 4 of 2019, as converted, which criminally sanction the failure to declare gross winnings in order to access the RDC or maintain it.
The matter raised by the Court of Foggia
The questions raised by Court of Foggiaconcern a person who had requested citizenship income despite failing to declare previous gambling winnings and who had not then communicated the further winnings achieved in the period in which he received the Rdc.
Since the regulation of the Rdc expressly prohibits using the proceeds for gaming«[i]The principle of substantial equality, to whose implementation the RDC is also attributable, certainly cannot be invoked in support of a question of constitutional legitimacy in the interests of those who have overturned the fundamental rules of the institution, thus altering its nature”.
The sentence then specified that “gambling online takes on the character of any expense, in this case luxury, that the person has made with an income available to him, coinciding with the crediting of the winnings to your gaming account; we cannot, therefore, expect public solidarity to cover such an expense.”
Since gambling winnings must be declared, without it being possible to consider the related losses, the situation of poverty “in which the person has found himself despite the winnings is, in short, that of someone who, having economic availability, 'he squandered playing.”
To reason otherwise, moreover, not only would one risk «of fuel gambling addiction in those who still suffer from it, but also to create, in any case, a safety net which would result in a de-responsibility incentive for gambling, the risks of which would in any case be covered by the state benefit of the RDC».
The sentence also excluded the violation of the principle of specificity of the criminal law referred to in art. 25 of the Constitution, because, despite a complex set of references, it is possible to deduce from the legislation the obligation to declare and communicate gross winnings; moreover, on a practical level, given the aforementioned complexity, «the possibility, recognized by the art. 5, paragraph 1, of the aforementioned decree, to present the RDC requests at tax assistance centers».
READ ALSO: Campania, Citizenship Income returns: €500 per family. Conte insists
#Rdc #Council #recognize #ruined #gambling