The Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia has partially condemned a retiree who was required by Social Security to return 6,829.80 euros of his retirement pension. The reason is that he was collecting the minimum supplement while his spouse had a salary for his work that exceeded the legal limit allowed, thus exceeding the income limit. In this way, the TSJ determines that there was an improper collection, but partially agrees with the pensioner by considering that part of the debt has expired due to processing errors by the Administration itself.
According to the ruling, this pensioner, named José Luis, has had a retirement pension recognized since August 2015, which, as it did not reach the minimum, the Social Security granted him the supplement in order to reach the minimum amount set. However, his wife continued to work and obtained an income of 24,734.84 euros in 2016, 23,100 in 2017 and 23,800 in 2018.
Social Security, upon realizing that he exceeded the income limit thanks to the data from the Tax Agency, notified the pensioner that he had exceeded the legally established limit. For this reason, the Provincial Directorate issued a resolution in which it claimed “the sum of 6,829.80 euros improperly received for the concept of minimum supplement between January 1, 2016 and October 31, 2018.”
But, apparently, Social Security made a mistake and tried to review and annul the collection directly (what is known as “ex officio review”), something that the regulations prohibit them from doing themselves when the acts declaring rights harm their beneficiaries. This took the retiree to court, and in 2021 a court annulled that initial claim, indicating that Social Security had to go to court to obtain it through “the appropriate lawsuit.” After this setback, Social Security had to restart the process and notified the affected person in April 2021.
The minimum supplement is incompatible with exceeding family limits
After a new passage through the Social Courts, the case reached the Superior Court of Justice of Andalusia, where it explains that the minimum supplement is conditional on the economic situation of the family unit. The fact that it was initially granted does not give the right to maintain it if the economic reality of the marriage changes and exceeds the legal limits.
As the ruling explains, “the recognition and conservation of this right requires that the income of the pensioner and/or his or her spouse, other than the pension, is not higher than the limits provided for in said rule.” When it was proven that the wife’s income exceeded those limits for three years, the court considered that there was an improper collection.
Debts expire after four years
In this ruling, the key is not that the minimum supplement had been collected improperly, but that Social Security took more than four years to claim the money. The pensioner alleged that, due to the delays and the manager’s first failed judicial process, the legal period of four years to claim the debt had already expired (prescribed).
The Court partially agreed with him and understood that the first erroneous Social Security procedure did not paralyze the legal clock, so, if we look at article 55.3 of the General Social Security Law, the period had expired. Therefore, the Court understands that the obligation to return the money collected in 2016 and early 2017 has expired.
The ruling verbatim concludes that “the benefits unduly received may only be claimed retroactively with respect to the four years prior to the day on which the beneficiary was again notified of the start of the reimbursement file on April 23, 2021, that is, from 4-23-2017.” Thus, the ruling partially revokes the previous sentence and declares “those prior to 4-23-2017 prescribed,” freeing the pensioner from paying a significant part of those almost 7,000 initial euros.