The involuntary early retirement allows workers to retire before the ordinary age when they have lost their job for reasons beyond their control. Although it is a widely used route in cases of objective dismissals or EREs, the General Social Security Law requires the worker to reliably demonstrate that they have received the severance payment. If you do not prove it, Social Security could deny this type of retirement.
This is stated in article 207 of the General Law of Social Security (consultable in this BOE), which explains that, in order to access this type of early retirement in certain cases, it will be necessary for the worker to prove that he or she has received the corresponding compensation derived from the termination of the employment contract. In this way, Social Security or INSS ensures that the dismissal is real and not a hidden agreement to advance retirement.
This control does not mean that the worker is left helpless if the company does not comply, that is, that the applicant will continue to have options if he proves that he has filed a lawsuit to claim said compensation or to challenge the termination decision, thus protecting the right to the pension of those affected by non-payments.
The bank receipt of the compensation
The law explains that the receipt of compensation will be accredited by means of a document of the bank transfer received or equivalent supporting documentation. Social Security is no longer satisfied with a simple signed agreement or a generic receipt; You need the trail of money in the account to give the green light to the file.
Now, like any rule, there is an exception, and that is that, although the general rule requires proof of payment, article 207 itself explains that withdrawal may be accessed if it is proven that a lawsuit has been filed to claim said compensation or to challenge the termination decision. In other words, if a worker is fired and his employer owes him the severance pay, he may apply for early retirement if you prove that you have already gone to court to demand your money.
The opinion of the Supreme Court
To understand it, we can resort to the rulings of the Supreme Court. The High Body, in its ruling unifying doctrine (STS 721/2018), made it clear that there is no room for flexibility. In that case, a worker was fired, collected his compensation in cash and presented a private document (the settlement) signed by both parties to Social Security as proof of having received the money. The response of Social Security, strongly supported by the Supreme Court, was to deny early retirement.
The magistrates argued that a simple “receipt” or a private document is not valid for this procedure. The objective of article 207 of the General Social Security Law is to eliminate any shadow of fraud and avoid simulated or agreed dismissals between the company and the worker whose sole purpose is to advance retirement at the expense of the public system. For this reason, the Supreme Court ruled that it is non-negotiable to present a bank receipt, since it is the only one that leaves an objective financial trail that is immune to manipulation.
Now, what happens if the company simply does not pay compensation? Jurisprudence has also provided for this scenario so as not to leave the worker helpless. In recent rulings (such as STS 236/2024), the Supreme Court explains that, if the company owes the settlement (or if the worker is forced to terminate his contract due to the employer’s non-payment), the retirement file is automatically paralyzed as there is no trace of the money.
To unblock it, the affected person has only one valid legal means: quickly present proof of having filed a lawsuit against the company claiming that amount. Only by providing this judicial document will Social Security give the green light to involuntary early retirement.
Difference between reasons for dismissal
Finally, it is important to distinguish between the causes of dismissal, since this requirement does not apply to everyone equally. While the demonstration of the bank transfer or the demand is mandatory for collective dismissal for economic, technical, organizational or production reasons, the dismissal for objective reasons and the termination of the contract at the will of the worker in the event of non-compliance by the employer (such as prolonged non-payments), the Law allows exceptions for other means.
The regulations establish that it will not be necessary to provide this economic justification when the termination is due to the death, retirement or incapacity of the individual entrepreneur, to the existence of force majeure verified by the labor authority, or to the termination of the contract by judicial resolution in a bankruptcy process. Therefore, being clear about the exact reason for the termination and providing the bank document in the required cases provides the legal and economic security necessary to access retirement without problems.