The Superior Court of Justice of Galicia (TSJG) has confirmed that a woman will not have to return 11,697 euros collected from the Minimum Vital Income (IMV) despite the fact that Social Security considered that she had received them improperly between the years 2020 and 2023. Sentence 628/2026 concludes that the error was exclusively attributable to the administration and that the beneficiary, a mother who worked as a domestic worker, acted at all times good faith.
The ruling was handed down last January by the Social Court of A Coruña and rejected the appeal filed by the INSS (National Social Security Institute), fully confirming the previous resolution of the Social Court number 5 of Vigo.
The beneficiary was a single-parent mother and had received other benefits
In 2020, the plaintiff, a single-parent mother with a daughter in her care, requested and began collect the Minimum Vital Income (IMV) after having been a beneficiary of other benefits. A year later, she found a part-time job as a domestic worker with a salary of 450 euros per month, and the same administration told her that this did not change the amount of the aid.
But when the data were cross-checked with the Tax Agency, the INSS concluded that the woman had improperly collected 15,000 euros although later, after a claim, the figure dropped to 11,697 euros.
To justify this statement, the administration analyzed the differences between actual and declared income, as well as the lack of documentation regarding their cohabitation unit. Justice has determined that these imbalances are not attributable to the beneficiary.
The sentence focuses its verdict on the good faith of the woman and the responsibility of the administration
The central axis of the failure is found in the application of the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and specifically in the ruling of the so-called ‘Cakarevic v. Croatia’ case that dates back to 2018. Here it is established that the return of benefits cannot be demanded when the error is attributable exclusively to the administration and the citizen has acted in good faith.
The Galician court emphasizes in the ruling that the plaintiff communicated in a timely manner the change in her income, derived from her new employment situation, and that it was the INSS that, for years, maintained and recalculated the IMV benefit based on this new data. “Either the INSS refrained from verifying them or made some error of its own.” He does regret the “late reaction” of the manager.
The ruling emphasizes the essential nature of the benefit since it is intended to cover basic needs as well as the situation of the beneficiary, which was vulnerable and was recognized by the Xunta de Galicia. In this way, forcing her to return that money would be “disproportionate.”
Failures in the management of benefits cannot be transferred to the beneficiaries
The resolution reinforces the principle of legitimate citizen confidence in administrative decisions and leaves a message. Failures in the management of benefits cannot be transferred to the beneficiaries when they act diligently. Although the ruling is not yet final and there is an appeal in the Supreme Court, the TSJG aligns itself with the jurisprudential line that is growing in Spain, which limits the ability of the administration to claim refunds when its own error has occurred.
To demonstrate this, the ruling cites other Supreme Court rulings in which this same doctrine has been applied in similar cases, including cases derived from unemployment benefits during the pandemic.