A retiree must return 22,918.80 euros of her non-contributory retirement pension, for exceeding the income limit of her cohabitation unit, to the Junta de Castilla y León. The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León agrees with the administration, since in the cohabitation unit was her son whose income exceeded this limit.
According to the ruling (STSJ CL 3890/2025), this woman, named Virtues, had been collecting the non-contributory retirement pension since 2015 (the benefit granted when she has no income and is over 65 years old), but in 2023, the Social Services Administration of the Government of Castilla y León carried out a review and found that she exceeded the income threshold to collect the aid.
You may be interested
Rubén de Gracia, economist: “In Spain, if you have not contributed even one day, you can collect a pension of 564 euros per month”
They demand that a woman with a disability return 22,889.64 euros of her pension for including her brother in the family unit, and the court forces it to be annulled, since he did not really live with her
This was so, since her son appeared in the Municipal Register, who had resided at the same address as the retiree since 2020. Thus, and after adding the income of both, the administration understood that the benefit should be extinguished by not meeting the requirements and in addition, that it should return the amounts unduly collected since 2020, making a total of 22,918.80 euros.
Since the woman was not satisfied, she decided to go to court by filing a lawsuit and where both the Social Court number 1 of Segovia and later the Superior Court of Justice did not agree with her, despite alleging that her son did not really live there despite the registry and, therefore, she should not return the money.
The family unit’s income was much higher than the limit
The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León explained that the beneficiary had failed to comply with the economic requirements that the regulations require to access and maintain non-contributory pensions. Although the woman had the right recognized, her son’s income caused the cohabitation unit to clearly exceed the maximum legal limit.
Thus, in 2020 the cohabitation unit earned 74,612.14 euros, with the accumulation limit being 23,538.20 euros; while in 2021, 79,206.19 euros were received, with the accumulation limit being 23,966.60 euros. In 2022, they had income of 79,905.75 euros, with the accumulation limit being 25,073.30 euros, and in 2023, they declared 79,905.75 euros, with the accumulation limit being 28,834.30 euros.
Thus, given that the income far exceeded the permitted income limit, the woman did not have the right to collect the non-contributory pension, so in addition to losing it (at least until she meets the requirements) she must return the amounts improperly collected.
The municipal registry, proof of coexistence
The key to the sentence was in the municipal registry. Although the retiree alleged that registration in the Municipal Register was not equivalent to a real residence and that the son (who teleworked) did not live there. In addition, he tried to present documents such as bank refunds or purchases to prove it, but the court rejected them for not being “reliable” or “literary-sufficient.”
Despite this, the court rejected it, remembering that the Municipal Register, according to Law 7/85 (consultable in this BOE), is the record that “constitutes proof of residence in the usual municipality” and its certificates have the character of a “public and reliable document.” Thus, the Court explained that this presumption of cohabitation is iuris tantum (it admits evidence to the contrary), but the retiree was unable to disprove it.
Finally, the court concludes that, although the son teleworks, “it does not undermine the presumption of the economic unit of cohabitation with his mother”, so the calculation of income made by the administration is correct and full reimbursement of what was unduly collected is appropriate.