A man has managed to get the Supreme Court to recognize a widow’s pension of 2,970.81 euros after Social Security denied it for not being married, despite having started the procedures to get married before the confinement due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court explained that the widower was entitled to the benefit because, after more than 20 years of living together, the wedding could not take place for a reason beyond his control.
It all starts when Jesús Luis requests a widow’s pension after his wife, Amparo, dies on May 30, 2020 and Social Security denies it. Apparently, the resolution letter explained that the requirements of article 221 of the General Social Security Law were not met, which requires being married or registered as a de facto couple to be able to access the pension.
You may be interested
A man cannot make a retirement and widow’s pension of 3,026.64 euros compatible as they are incompatible and must return 5,391.32 euros to Social Security
A woman begins to collect her widow’s pension and Social Security forces her to return 10,542.12 euros after recognizing the right of the deceased’s first wife
After the denial, the widower filed a claim with Social Security in which he proved that he had lived with his partner for more than 20 years, residing together in the same home since 2006, with joint bank accounts, properties acquired in proindiviso and reciprocal wills where both recognized themselves as a couple “in an emotional relationship analogous to the marital one.”
In addition, they had a date to join that marriage bond, this being March 11, 2020, but it could not be celebrated because only three days later the state of alarm and confinement was decreed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, making the ceremony impossible. Even so, Social Security did not recognize the existence of a valid link.
Yes, I was entitled to a widow’s pension.
Faced with the refusal of Social Security, Jesús Luis decided to go to court. In the first instance, the Madrid Social Court did not agree with him, understanding that he did not meet the requirements of article 221 of the General Social Security Law (which can be consulted in this BOE), which requires being married or registered as a de facto couple to be able to access the benefit.
Despite this, the widower decided to go to court again, this time to the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid, which agreed with him by considering that his case should be interpreted in a “intuitive, flexible and finalist” way, in accordance with article 3.1 of the Civil Code, which requires the application of the rules “according to the social reality of the time in which they are to be interpreted.” The Madrid TSJ understood that it was not a lack of will on the part of the couple, but rather a circumstance of force majeure derived from confinement due to the pandemic.
The Social Security, faced with this ruling, decided to present an appeal for the unification of doctrine, which finally reached the Supreme Court, which confirmed the decision of the TSJ, that is, that the widower had the right to a widow’s pension.
There was a demonstrable link
The Supreme Court concluded that, although Jesús Luis was neither married nor registered as a de facto couple, his situation should be considered equivalent for the purposes of article 221.2 of the LGSS, since there was a clear, public and documented desire to marry, frustrated only by the state of alarm.
The Court explained that “the impediment was due to the occurrence of an extraordinary event beyond their control, which was the appearance of the pandemic resulting from COVID-19 and the subsequent state of alarm that led to the suspension of their marriage date.”
Furthermore, it adds that there was a “situation clearly preventing the celebration of the planned marriage, which only needed to process the appearance and ratification before a Notary”, and that, therefore, a finalist interpretation of the rule had to be applied so as not to penalize the applicant for an event of force majeure.
So, for everything explained, the High Court said that she was entitled to a widow’s pension, since the impossibility of getting married did not depend on her will. The Chamber applied an exceptional and humane interpretation, in line with the social reality of the pandemic, emphasizing that “the consequences of an adverse event completely beyond the will of the parties cannot simply have harmful effects for the interested parties.”