A 67-year-old domestic worker has lost her retirement pension after the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias ruled in favor of the National Social Security Institute, citing improper access. That is, he did not meet the requirements, since his last contract was simulated with the objective of complying with the minimum contribution period. Furthermore, and given that this employment contract was simulated by her 86-year-old retired employer, she will be fined 7,501 euros.
According to the ruling (STSJ AS 13**/2025), Mariana was an 86-year-old retiree who hired Manuela as a domestic worker, who was 65 years old at that time with a full-time job and a salary of 1,050 euros per month. Two years later, the worker requested a retirement pension from Social Security, which was granted after verifying that she met the requirements of article 205 of the General Social Security Law.
You may be interested
Several retirees over 80 years of age speak clearly: “With the pension they gave me before of about 500 euros, I had almost more than now, because everything has gone up”
A man loses his retirement pension and must return 10,361.52 euros to Social Security for traveling to Morocco and exceeding the duration in 19 days: Justice supports it
Despite the normality, the Labor Inspection and the General Treasury of Social Security detected that the hiring was simulated. In this sense, and after an investigation, it was discovered that there were no bank transactions that accredited the payment of the salary, nor were there any cash withdrawals in Mariana’s account, who received all her pensions by transfer.
For this reason, the Labor Inspection concluded that the employment relationship was simulated so that Manuela could complete the two years of contributions that she needed to qualify for retirement, that is, the generic deficiency (15 years of contributions) and the specific one (2 years within the last 15 years). “It gave rise to the situation of fictitious discharge… used to fraudulently request and access an ordinary contributory retirement pension,” the ruling states.
For this reason, Social Security suspended the retirement pension, so it must return the amounts unduly collected and imposed on Mariana a penalty of 7,501 euros for a very serious infraction typified in article 23.1.e) of the Law on Infractions and Sanctions in the Social Order (which can be consulted in this BOE), in addition to declaring her jointly responsible for the return of the amounts unduly received by the worker.
Fraudulent contract to collect pension
After learning of the sanction, Mariana decided to go to the Social Court No. 1 of Oviedo, alleging that the employment relationship was authentic and that there was no fraud or intention of fraud. But even so, the court did not agree with her, so this pensioner appealed the sentence before the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias, insisting that the hiring was “real and in accordance with the law” and that the principle of presumption of innocence should be applied.
The court did not agree with him in all the arguments he presented. The Court remembers that Mariana had never had a domestic worker before or after Manuela (despite her advanced age), nor that she had a real need for domestic assistance. On the other hand, there were no bank statements to pay that salary to the domestic worker and, finally, it was a coincidence that the worker agreed to retire as soon as she completed exactly the two years of contributions required (the specific deficiency that we have explained before).
For this reason, the court explains that “such data constitute sufficient evidence to understand the existence of a contractual simulation aimed at guaranteeing the contracted party’s access to retirement benefits.” Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the sanction of 7,501 euros is ratified.
The key to the ruling: a fictitious contract to obtain a pension
In this ruling the key is that a contract cannot be simulated to access contributory benefits or pensions, such as retirement, since it would be fraud. In this case, the retiree hired her, but I cannot demonstrate evidence of payroll payments that would corroborate that real employment relationship.
As the Court explains, “the effective provision of services by Ms. Manuela is not proven in any way,” also highlighting that the alleged employer was 86 years old and the worker was 67, just at the time when she needed to complete the contribution period.
For this reason, the court confirms that the Treasury acted correctly and the sanction was “in accordance with the law.” In this way, the woman loses her retirement pension, and both she and her employer must respond to the return of the amounts unduly received.