Pensions, what to do when the pensioner dies and who is responsible for reporting the death to INPS? To the heirs, to the municipality of residence or to the doctor who certifies their death? To explain this, through a recent sentence of the Supreme Court, is the legal advice and information site Laleggepertutti.it. As the site reports, in fact “the VI criminal section of the Supreme Court explains it in a ruling of which only the provisional information is known for now and which reaches diametrically opposite conclusions compared to what the Court itself affirmed in the past with the sentences 48820/2013 and 14940/2018. The question – it reads – is of particular relevance if it is taken into account that, on the death of the pensioner, it is necessary to notify the INPS of the death so that the payment of the pension is interrupted, as Therefore, defining who is responsible for communicating the death to INPS is decisive to the extent that, should it be deemed that this obligation falls to the heirs, in the event of an omission, an indictment could result for the crime of “undue receipt of to the detriment of the State. “This, moreover – explains the legal information site – has been the traditional position espoused by the jurisprudence. ion, it is the responsibility of the heirs to send the death certificate to INPS as soon as the death occurs. So, to trigger the criminal offense, the crediting of even a single month’s pension would be enough, without the possibility of justifying oneself by arguing that there was not the time necessary to send the communication “. Today, however, the Supreme Court , explains Laleggepertutti.it, “the same question was asked again: who communicates the death to INPS, and this time the solution was different. According to the changed orientation – it reads -, it is no longer up to the heirs to inform the social security institution about the death of the pensioner. Nor is it up to the possible co-holder of the current account on which the pension is credited. As clarified in the ruling in question, law no. 289 introduced the obligation for municipal registries to transmit death notices online to INPS. This implies that it is the Municipality that must notify the INPS of the death of the pensioner and certainly not the private citizens; there is no rule that requires the latter to deliver the paper death certificate to the INPS offices (as was previously thought, recalling article 316-ter of the Code, which sanctions the omission of due information) “. in the same way, continues the site, “Article 1 of Law no. 190 established the obligation for necropsy doctors to send the death certificate online to INPS within 48 hours of the event. On this basis, the INPS, after reporting the death, automatically identifies the subject in its archives and makes the necessary changes relating to the pension. Therefore, as highlighted now by the Court, the heirs – it is emphasized – have no obligation to notify INPS of the death and, consequently, nothing can be reproached to them in the event of silence. Today, therefore, it is no longer the relatives of the deceased who report the death to INPS; rather, it must be the municipal registry and the necroscope doctor (ie the doctor appointed by the ASL to certify the death of a person). However, this does not prevent the family member from sending the certificate of death of the pensioner to the INPS “. In any case, continues Laleggepertutti.it,” the fact remains that, if the pension is credited to the account, the they will be required to return the amount to INPS, thus avoiding at least a civil judgment aimed at recovering the undue amount. The Court – it continues – was asked “whether the crime referred to in Article 316-ter of the Criminal Code can be considered to exist in the event that the co-holder of the current account on which the pension of his relative is credited does not communicate the death to the social security institution and continue to receive pension accruals ». To this question, however, the judges answered “in the negative, as the omission of information due because it is not provided cannot be considered to exist”, the conclusion.