The Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country has Denied a retirement pension to a self-employed worker who contributed 30 years to Social Securityfor not complying with the specific deficiency requirement. The magistrates determined that the plaintiff did not prove a single day of the 730 days required within the fifteen years prior to the causative event, an essential condition to access the benefit according to article 205.b of the General Social Security Law (LGSS). ).
This self-employed worker, born in 1945, was affiliated with Social Security and, at the time of submitting the pension application, at 30 years old contributed to different Social Security regimes. Specifically, he had 1,574 days in the General Social Security Regime, 2,773 days in the Special Regime for the Sea and 12,631 days in the Special Regime for Self-Employed Workers (RETA).
He National Social Security Institute (INSS) denied the request of the pension on October 4, 2022, considering that it did not comply with the specific contribution requirement. The current regulations establish that, to access the benefit, it is necessary to have contributed for at least 730 days (two years) within the 15 years immediately prior to the causative event (September 10, 2022), a period in which the worker did not register contributions.
This is the key reason why your retirement pension was denied. Although he had 10,859 days of contributions (more than 29 years), he did not meet the requirement of having contributed for at least two years within the last 15 years prior to the causative event. To be more precise, from August 1, 2004 until the day you submitted your application, It did not quote a single day, that is, in the last 18 years.
In this sense, if he had complied with the established requirements, he would have been entitled to 100% of his regulatory base, which is calculated at 729.72 euros. Even if this amount is less than the minimum pension, you would have the right to request the minimum supplement.
The retirement pension was approved in the first instance
Given that the retirement pension had been denied, this worker wanted to take his case to court in order to be ruled in favor. In the first instance, the Social Court No. 12 of Bilbao, agreed with him to access the retirement pension in its contributory modality with the 100% of the regulatory base. The ruling was based on a favorable interpretation of article 205.1.b) and article 311 of the General Social Security Law (LGSS).
Given this decision, the INSS and the General Treasury of Social Security (TGSS) filed an appeal before the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV). They argued that the plaintiff did not comply with the specific contribution requirement required by article 205.1.b) of the LGSS.
Retirement pension denied
The TSJ of the Basque Country, after reviewing the proven facts, verified that the plaintiff had not made any quote since August 1, 2004, thus failing to comply with this essential requirement to access the benefit. In its ruling, the TSJPV revoked the decision of the Social Court and confirmed the denial of the pension.
The court noted that, although the plaintiff had accumulated more than 29 years of effective contributions, the absence of contributions in the specific period of the 15 years prior to the causative event was determining factor to reject the benefit. Furthermore, they pointed out that the unpaid and prescribed installments could not be considered as quoted to meet the specific deficiency requirement.
The regulations used to justify the denial included article 205.1.b) of the LGSS, which regulates the total and specific contribution requirements, and the Article 311, which exempts the self-employed from contributing once they reach retirement age under certain conditions. Despite this, this last article was not applicable to the case, since the regulations in force in 2010 (when the plaintiff turned 65) was Additional Provision 32 of the LGSS of 1994, which required 35 years of contributions to exempt from the obligation to contribute. The plaintiff had only contributed for 29 years and 9 months.
It is worth mentioning that in these cases, the parenthesis doctrine is always applied, which allows computing periods prior to the cessation of the obligation to contribute. Even so, its application would not have modified the result, since the plaintiff did not make contributions during the required 15 years nor regularize the outstanding contributions.