The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid has ruled in favor of a worker and has recognized his right to receive unemployment benefits in a single payment (what is known as the capitalization of unemployment) to work as a salesman delivering seafood. Initially, the State Public Employment Service (SEPE) had denied him due to alleged family ties and atypical salaries in his previous company.
Going into the case, the man in question works as a manager and, in October 2023, he was disciplinaryly dismissed for not returning to his position after vacation. That same month, he requested unemployment benefits from the SEPE, which was granted. The following month, in November, he requested its capitalization (collect it in a single payment), to start a self-employed commercial activity dedicated to the distribution of fresh and frozen seafood.
The SEPE, however, denied him, alleging “indications of fraud”, which were the following: he had been working in a supposed family business (since the signatory of the company certificate had his last name, so they understood that he was his brother or direct relative), he had an unusually high salary that did not correspond to his position (4,495.50 euros), and he had not claimed his dismissal after “more than 25 years” of service.
Thus, the SEPE deduced that the true objective was to expand an existing family business instead of creating a new one. Not satisfied with this decision, and having already exhausted the administrative route, the employee filed a claim through judicial means. However, initially, the Social Court No. 30 of Madrid rejected his claim, agreeing with the State Public Employment Service.
The TSJ of Madrid does recognize the capitalization of unemployment
As he did not agree with the sentence, the worker decided to appeal it, presenting a petition before the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, which did agree with him. First, this court recalled the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, which establishes that fraud of law requires proof and can never be presumed, with the burden of proof falling on the person who alleges it (in this case, the SEPE).
In this sense, the TSJ points out that, although indirect evidence or presumptions are admitted, they must be based on objective data and proven facts. Despite this, the lower court ruling assumed the “indications” of the SEPE without there being any real proof of them in the factual account.
For example, the SEPE spoke of a seniority of 25 years, but the proven facts only reflect an employment relationship from 2019 to 2022; It was assumed that it was a family business only because of the coincidence of surnames; and the alleged disproportionate salary was not declared as a proven fact. Furthermore, failure to challenge a disciplinary dismissal does not invalidate access to the benefit.
In all of this, the court highlighted a fundamental point: the SEPE indirectly questioned access to unemployment, but at no time did it review or annul the right to the contributory benefit that it had already recognized.
Since the right to unemployment was firm, the only question up for debate was whether its single payment was appropriate. Regarding this, the TSJ of Madrid points out that there was no objective indication that the worker wanted to use the money to “expand an existing business.” On the contrary, he provided all the documentation required to create a new seafood distribution company, and the fact that he had previously worked in another company in the same sector is not proof of fraudulent intentions.
For all these reasons, the court upheld his appeal and ordered the SEPE to pay him unemployment benefits in the form of a single payment. Now, this ruling (STSJM 15738/2025) was not final and against it it was possible to file an appeal for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.