To collect the retirement pension, Social Security requires compliance with the generic deficiency (having contributed for at least 15 years) and the specific deficiency (that at least 2 of those years are within the last 15 years). Furthermore, it is essential to be up to date with the payment of Social Security contributions, since an outstanding debt can prevent the right to a pension from being recognized, even after having contributed for more than 30 years. This is precisely what happened to Very happy, a self-employed worker who, upon requesting his retirement at age 72 and after having contributed to different regimes for more than 33 years, will not be able to receive his pension due to an outstanding debt that prevented him from complying with the specific deficiency requirement.
In 2018, this self-employed worker with more than 33 years of contributions between the General Regime and the Special Regime for Self-Employed Workers (RETA), applied for his retirement pension to the National Social Security Institute (INSS). Despite its long listing career, Social Security denied him the benefit arguing that did not meet the requirement of being up to date with the payment of contributions. Specifically, he had a outstanding debt of 13,903.14 euros corresponding to the periods between February 2014 and November 2016, when he was registered as self-employed. Social Security made it easier for this worker to regulate his contributions and gave him a period of 30 days, but he did not pay it.
In 2021, after not having resolved his economic situation with Social Security, Felicísimo submitted a prior claim to Social Security alleging that the debts were not his responsibility, but those of the companies he managed. Furthermore, he argued that Debt should not be an obstacle to recognizing your right to a pension. Despite this, the INSS rejected his claim, insisting that as a self-employed worker, he was directly responsible for paying the contributions. Furthermore, Social Security maintained that did not meet the specific deficiency requirementsince he had not contributed for at least two years within the last 15 years before the causative event.
After the refusal of the INSS, in March 2023 Felicísimo submitted a new retirement application, indicating a new date as the causative event. Despite the attempts, This second request was also denied for the same reasons: did not meet the minimum contribution requirements within the reference period and had outstanding debt with Social Security. Faced with this situation, and convinced that his right to a pension was being violated, he decided to take his case to court to try to reverse the Social Security decision.
The retirement pension was granted in the first instance
When the case reached the Social Court No. 5 of Badajoz, The judge initially agreed with Felicísimorevoking the resolutions of Social Security. In its ruling, the court determined that the right to pension should be recognizedsince he met the general contribution and age requirements. Based on the doctrine of the Supreme Court (STS 243/2023) on the imprescriptibility of the right to a pensionthe judge considered that the outstanding debts could not prevent him from accessing the recognition of the right, although he limited the economic effects of the pension to three months before his last request.
The non-compliant Social Security decided to appeal, presenting an appeal before the Superior Court of Justice of Extremadura.
Outstanding debt reason for denying retirement pension
The case was taken to the Superior Court of Justice of Extremadura, where Social Security argued that this self-employed worker did not comply with the specific requirements established in article 205.1.b of the General Social Security Law (LGSS). According to this regulation, to access the pension it is necessary to have contributed for at least two years within the last fifteen years prior to the causative event.
Furthermore, Social Security indicated that the Article 28.2 of Decree 2530/1970 requires that the applicant be up to date with the payment of the contributions at the time in which the benefit is understood to have been caused. In this case, it was highlighted that Felicísimo maintained a debt with Social Security, which prevented their pending contributions from being computed.
After hearing the parties, the Superior Court ruled that Felicísimo I was not entitled to the pensionrevoking the ruling of the court of first instance. The court argued that, although The right to a pension is imprescriptible, the specific deficiency and the regularization of pending contributions are essential requirements. As the court stated, “lThe pension is obtained with the contributions paid prior to the causative event, and the requirement of being up to date with contributions does not allow exceptions.“In addition, it was reiterated that non-prescribed debts cannot be ignored or compensated with retroactive effects, thus confirming the denial of the right to benefit.
This does not mean that you are no longer entitled to a retirement pension, you will be entitled as long as you meet all the requirements established in the General Social Security Law.