The Superior Court of Justice of La Rioja (TSJ) has confirmed the withdrawal of the retirement pension of a man who worked on an agricultural farm and requires him to return 46,837.14 euros unduly collected between 2020 and 2022.
The ruling ratifies the previous ruling of the Social Court No. 3 of Logroño, which declared the collection of the pension incompatible with his activity as a farmer, as it was a self-employed job that required him to contribute to Social Security.
The Inspection detected that the retiree was the one who actually worked the exploitation
The origin of the case begins with an investigation by the Labor Inspection that, at first, studied the situation of the retiree’s wife, who was registered in the Special System for Agricultural Workers (SETA) since 2014.
However, the proceedings revealed that the facts did not correspond to reality. According to the ruling, it was the retiree himself who directly exploited the land, which he had also owned for years before.
The indications were clear: he had the necessary license to apply phytosanitary products, the tractor used on the farm was in his name and there was no documentation proving that his wife carried out a real agricultural activity, no contracts, no billing, no means of her own.
Furthermore, the woman had been on medical leave on multiple occasions shortly after discharge, and the ailments she alleged predated her enrollment in the system, which reinforced the conclusion that this was a simulated situation.
In this way, the Inspection concluded that the wife’s registration was fictitious and that the real self-employed worker was the husband, who continued to receive the pension without fulfilling his contribution obligations.
Ex officio registration and claim of what was collected
After verifying these irregularities, the General Treasury of Social Security automatically registered the retiree in the SETA with effect from April 1, 2020.
From that moment on, the National Social Security Institute began a procedure to review his pension and demanded the return of everything received during that period, which amounted to 46,837.14 euros.
The court agreed with Social Security and declared that the pension was incompatible with the agricultural activity carried out, so the retiree had to repay that amount.
The Court recalls that the General Social Security Law (LGSS), in its article 213, establishes as a general rule that the retirement pension is incompatible with work. It is only allowed in exceptional cases, such as self-employed activities with income below the Minimum Interprofessional Wage (SMI) and that do not require contributions. In this case, since there is an obligation to register with the SETA, this exception could not be applied.
The TSJ rejects that the income was compatible with the pension
The affected person appealed the sentence alleging that his income was reduced and did not exceed the Minimum Interprofessional Wage, which, in his opinion, would make it possible to make the pension compatible with self-employed activity.
However, the Superior Court of Justice of La Rioja rejects this argument. The Chamber explains that it is not valid to use the reduced net performance of the tax modules to determine whether the limit is exceeded, but rather the actual income from the activity must be taken into account.
Furthermore, it emphasizes that in this case there was clear fraud, since the income was distributed between both spouses to pretend that the SMI was not exceeded and thus maintain the pension.
The key: the obligation to contribute prevents compatibility
The decisive element for dismissing the appeal is that there was already a final ruling confirming the retiree’s registration with the SETA and his obligation to contribute for agricultural activity.
The court recalls that compatibility between pension and work is only possible in cases of marginal activities that do not require contributions. But when, as in this case, that obligation exists, the pension becomes incompatible.
For all these reasons, the TSJ fully confirms the previous ruling and forces the retiree to return the 46,837 euros received unduly.