Even EPAP, the multi-category social security institution for geologists, chemists, actuaries, agronomists and foresters, which has 30.000 members, was involved in the sentence of the Council of State which, overturning previous sentences of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, established that Privatized social security funds must be classified as public administrations according to the list compiled every year by Istat, with the consequence, above all, of the inclusion of the Funds themselves in the provisions of the so-called spending review.
The reaction of the Epap was not long in coming, through the mouth of the president Arcangelo Pirrello: "To reason according to any logic or school of thought the status of a private subject (even in the public function), typical of the social security institutions of the freelancers, cannot be questioned. The social security institutions of freelancers - precisely defined in two broad categories, "privatized" (because the transition from public to private took place in 1995) and "private" (as in the case of Epap, because they were born this way in 1996) – they are used to give private pensions paid with private contributions paid by private freelancers; and these privatized or private entities pay taxes as much as and more than private taxpayers. Not enough, the status of "private with public function" was sentenced by the Court of Cassation in joint sections, while the Lazio Regional Administrative Court ruled twice that, as private individuals, social security institutions (private or privatized) must not be included among the public bodies on the Istat list”.
The possible inclusion in the Istat list of public administrations would result in a severe limitation of their financial and managerial autonomy for Banks of this kind, since the public administrations must submit to criteria in line with what is established by the European Union and therefore to spending cuts review, especially on intermediate expenses. In this way, the savings thus obtained will be paid into a special state account, creating a disparity effectively summarized by President Pirrello: “The question is not trivial. In this way, private entities do not have the advantages of public entities (for example the transfers that are reserved for INPS), while they have the disadvantages in terms of bureaucratic burdens”.
"Those of the spending review - said the EPAP president - are improper or extra heavy taxes: we must give the State savings which are the legitimate and absolute property of the members and which, if anything, should return to the members in the form of services or an increase in the amount . But no, the money owned by the members and saved by the institutions must be forfeited by the state. And without even the semblance of a special tax, or a property tax. We will continue our fight in all international courts".
