To be able to access the contributory retirement pension, Social Security requires that you have a minimum of 15 years throughout your working life and that at least two of those years be within the last 15 years prior to the application. , this being known as specific deficiency. But, sometimes the first is more than fulfilled, but not the second, which gives rise to the denial of the pension. This is what happened to a worker who, with more than 27 years of Social Security contributions, had his retirement pension denied due to lack of contributions in the specific deficiency period.
According to the ruling to which this media has had access, this worker requested a retirement pension in January 2022, but the National Social Security Institute (INSS) rejected his request, arguing that he did not comply with the specific waiting period demanded. Although had been contributing for more than 27 years (27 years, 4 months and 18 days), in the 15 years prior to his application he did not reach the two minimum years of contributions required, which was decisive for the denial.
This was due to the fact that, after ending his self-employment activity in March 2005, this worker He did not contribute to the system or register as a job seeker during this period. Following this resolution, the worker filed a claim with Social Security, but it was rejected for the same reasons.
Not satisfied, the affected person decided to take his situation to court. In the first instance, the Social Court No. 1 of Burgos rejected his claim, agreeing with Social Security. Subsequently, he filed an appeal before the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León.
The Parenthesis Doctrine
In the TSJ of Castilla y León, the plaintiff sought to apply the “parenthesis theory” doctrine, a legal principle that allows certain periods of inactivity or without contributions to be discounted when these interruptions are due to causes beyond the worker’s control, such as It could be involuntary unemployment.
The parenthesis theory seeks to protect workers who, for justified reasons, had interruptions in their working life. Despite this, the court determined that this worker’s case did not meet the necessary criteria to apply it. Although he alleged health problems and having taken care of his mother between 2014 and 2018, the court considered that these circumstances did not justify the prolonged absence of contributions, since his ailments were not considered disabling in several previous resolutions, and the care of his mother occurred outside the period relevant to the calculation.
The Superior Court of Justice based its decision on the article 205.1.b) of Royal Legislative Decree 8/2015which establishes that, of the minimum 15 years of contributions required, at least two must have been completed within the last 15 years before the application. In the case of Ginés, it did not meet this requirement by adding less than the necessary 730 days. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the interruptions in his working life were prolonged and could not be considered brief or beyond his control, essential requirements to apply this doctrine.
For all these reasons, the court rejected this worker’s appeal and confirmed the initial resolution of the National Social Security Institute, leaving firm the denial of his retirement pension. Now, you will be able to access it when you meet all the requirements.