A pensioner will have to return 5,391.32 euros to Social Security after having simultaneously collected a retirement pension of 2,536.52 euros and another widow’s pension of 490.12 euros per month, that is, a total of 3,026.64 euros per month. The Superior Court of Justice of Asturias explains that it was not possible to collect both pensions at the same time, since the special pension under the mining regime and which has a special agreement requires that the beneficiary not be the holder of any other pension in the system.
According to the ruling, Secundino had received a widow’s pension from the General Regime since 1993, the amount of which was 490.12 euros per month. As of July 1, 2022, he also began to receive a retirement pension for absolute permanent disability from the Special Regime for Coal Mining, with an amount of 2,536.52 euros per month.
The problem arose when he requested the revaluation of his pensions. Then, Social Security reviewed his file and verified that, when recognizing the new pension, “it was not taken into account that one of the requirements for said recognition is that the actor was not the holder of any other Social Security pension.” That is why he gave her the choice between maintaining the new retirement or continuing with the other pension that she had already been receiving along with the widow’s pension. Since he didn’t say anything, Social Security understood that it would keep the largest amount.
Later, Social Security reviewed the widow’s pension, suspended its payment and claimed 5,391.32 euros for the amounts collected between July 1, 2022 and April 30, 2023. The affected person presented allegations and then went to court, but both the Social Court number 4 of Oviedo and the TSJ of Asturias ruled in favor of Social Security.
I couldn’t collect both pensions at the same time.
In the appeal, the pensioner defended that article 223 of the General Social Security Law should be applied, which says that “the widow’s pension will be compatible with any work income.” But the court explained that this article did not resolve this case, because the compatibility of widowhood with labor income was not discussed here, but rather with a special pension subject to its own rules.
The Chamber also recalled that this issue had already been resolved in previous rulings and cited a key phrase to understand the ruling: “to be entitled” to that special pension, “it will be a condition that the pensioner not be the holder of any other Social Security pension.” And he adds that, if this condition is mandatory, “it can be deduced that the non-compatibility of this benefit with another pension is the underlying principle of this regulation.”
In short, I could not make the two pensions compatible because the problem was not widowhood alone. What must be understood from this ruling is that the special retirement from coal mining is only recognized if the person receiving it does not have another Social Security pension. For this reason, the court confirmed the suspension of widowhood and the return of the 5,391.32 euros improperly collected.