To collect the retirement pension it is necessary not only to have at least 15 years of contributions to Social Security, but also to meet other conditions such as the specific deficiency, that is, that of the total years of contributions at least two years are within the last 15 years. Failure to comply with this condition may lead to our pension being denied. This is what has happened to a 70-year-old worker who has seen her pension denied after she did not have a single day of contributions in the last 15 years.
This worker applied for a retirement pension from Social Security in 2017, counting for a total of 17 years, 6 months and 23 days of contributions throughout her working life. Social Security denied him, since he did not have the legal ordinary retirement age, as established by Law 27/2011 (can be consulted in this BOE).
You may be interested
Raises the retirement age to 68 years: the country that seeks to work harder to guarantee the sustainability of pensions
The change in retirement pensions with which Social Security would reduce spending by 40%
Thus, he waited and in 2018 he submitted a new application again, but it was still denied, but this time not for not meeting the ordinary age, but for not meeting the specific deficiency, which is regulated in article 205.1.b of the General Social Security Law. This requirement says that to access the retirement pension it will be necessary to have at least 730 days (2 years) within the last fifteen years prior to the causative event (generally this is when the pension is requested).
Once again, at age 70, he once again applied for a retirement pension, which was also denied to Social Security for the same reason. As the ruling states, “On the date of the causative event (07/15/2022), you have 0 days of contributions in the last 15 years, instead of the 730 required by article 205.1.b) of the LGSS.”
Did not meet the specific requirement
Given the situation and the situation of being without a pension, the worker filed a lawsuit against the National Social Security Institute (INSS) and the General Treasury of Social Security (TGSS) before the Social Court number 2 of Palencia. In this she claimed that the time she had dedicated to women’s social service, between July 1, 1974 and August 22, 1976, would be computed as contributed time, as if it were time actually contributed. He maintained that the same criterion that the law and jurisprudence recognize for male compulsory military service should be applied, since both were compulsory services of a state nature.
Despite this, the Court rejected it, explaining that women’s social service cannot be counted as a contribution for ordinary retirement purposes, since the General Social Security Law only expressly contemplates it in cases of early or partial retirement. For the court, accepting this point meant extending the rule beyond what the General Social Security Law allows.
The woman was still not satisfied, so she decided to go to the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León, alleging that an interpretation with a gender perspective should be applied, based on three main foundations: article 205 of the LGSS, the Supreme Court Ruling 115/2020, which had recognized the right of women to compute women’s social service in certain cases, and additional provision 28 of Law 27/2021, which urges the Government to study compensatory measures in matters of Social Security.
Even so, they were denied again. The reason given by the TSJ was that the 2020 Supreme Court doctrine is only applicable to early or partial retirements, not to ordinary retirement, which is what the plaintiff requested. For this reason, the Court denied him a contributory retirement pension (although if he meets the requirements he can access a non-contributory retirement pension).
Why did I want to use the female service to access the pension?
The woman tried to have her mandatory female social service recognized as time paid into Social Security, in order to meet the specific two-year gap within the last fifteen years required by law to access contributory retirement. As he did not have any recent contributions, he intended that this period be counted in the same way as mandatory male military service, which is taken into account in some cases of early or partial retirement.
But as we have explained, both Social Security and the courts rejected it, considering that the General Social Security Law only allows this time to be computed in early or partial retirements, but not in ordinary retirement, which was what I had requested.