The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia gives the Partially reason to the Public State Employment Service (SEPE) and forces an unemployed (previously subsidy of 55 years). The reason was that it did not communicate this inheritance, whose value exceeded the allowed income limit to access the subsidy, which is 75% of the minimum interprofessional salary. Even so, the TSJ decided to apply the doctrine of the Supreme Court, the inheritance in cash should be computed as a non -newspaper income, which led to revoke the extinction of the subsidy and replace it with a suspension of 21 months.
The plaintiff requested unemployment subsidy for over 55 years (which is now the subsidy for over 52 years), which was granted by the SEPE in December 2014, with an initial duration until June 18, 2020. The problem He arrived when, in 2018, the plaintiff received an inheritance with other heirs, which included real estate, balance in bank accounts and domestic trousseau. In total, the value of the inheritance was 184,493.98 euros, of which the Fifth, that is, 36,898.78 euros. Subsequently, in August 2019, he sold his participation in the property inherited for 20,200 euros. Although he was obliged to inform the SEPE of any change in his economic situation, did not communicate the inheritance or its impact on their income.
This sum made, according to the Sepe, the beneficiary He no longer meets the requirement to continue charging the subsidy for over 52 years. By detecting that he had received an inheritance that, in his interpretation, exceeded 75% of the minimum interprofessional salary (SMI), the SEPE began in October 2019 an administrative procedure to extinguish the benefit.
In November 2019, the agency informed the beneficiary that its subsidy had been extinguished and that, in addition, it had to return 5,708.23 euros for undue collections. The plaintiff was not satisfied and decided to take his case to the courts.
The Court confirms the partial return of the subsidy
The Social Court No. 3 of Cádiz proved the plaintiff and annulled the resolution of the Public Employment Service, considering that the inheritance should not be computed as an income that justified the extinction of the subsidy. In this sense, the Court applied the doctrine (Judgment of the Supreme Court of July 11, 2024 RCUD 3671/2021) that established that inherited goods did not generate income until benefits were obtained from them, so that the perception of the subsidy does not It should be considered improper.
Despite the ruling, the SEPE appealed the sentence through an appeal for supplication before the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia (TSJA), arguing that the inheritance should be considered as a patrimonial income that exceeded the limit allowed to receive the subsidy. In addition, he insisted that The plaintiff breached his obligation to communicate any variation in his incomeas established by the General Social Security Law (LGSS) and in the Law on Infractions and Sanctions in the Social Order (smooth), which justified the extinction of the subsidy for over 52 years and the return of the amounts of money collected improperly.
Return of 5,708.23 euros
The TSJA after analyzing the case, determined that the ruling of the Social Court It was not quite correct. On the one hand, as explained in the sentence, inheritance in metallic should not be accounted for as an immediate income that extinguishes the subsidy, but are prorated in monthly payments to determine how long the beneficiary can sustain without the need for the subsidy.
On the other hand, the plaintiff did not receive this inheritance in a cash paymentso the smooth regulations establish that this should have communicated it to the SEPE, that not doing so is a lack considered very serious.
Thus, the TSJ determined that the inherited quantity allowed the beneficiary to sustain for 21 monthsso the benefit should have been suspended instead of extinguishing. Therefore, it must return the amount of 5,708.23 euros, but with the exception that the subsidy can continue to charge.
This sentence clashes a bit with the issued a week ago by the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, where, for the same facts, the subsidy was extinguished for over 52 years (that is, the beneficiary will not be able to request it again), to Difference of this, in which only a suspension has been applied. The difference between both sentences lies in The amount of the inheritance and behavior of the beneficiary.
In the case of Andalusia, the Court considered that the inheritance was not high enough to justify the extinction of the subsidy, so it decided to suspend it for 21 months instead of eliminating it. In addition, the beneficiary was not proven to hide the information with bad intention.
On the other hand, in the case of Madrid, the court determined that the inheritance clearly exceeded the permitted limit and that the beneficiary concealed the information deliberately and lied about his economic situation. Therefore, in this case, the subsidy was completely extinguished and the total return of money was ordered unduly.