A 77-year-old worker has had his retirement pension rejected despite having paid Social Security contributions for more than 30 years. The Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country has ruled in favor of the INSS by concluding that, although he accumulated 11,224 days of contributions throughout his working life, that is, 30 years, 9 months and 4 days, he did not comply with the specific deficiency required by law and was not up to date with Social Security payments.
For access the contributory retirement pensionIn addition to meeting the minimum of 15 years, article 205.1 b) of the General Social Security Law requires at least two years of contributions within the 15 years immediately prior to the causative event. The ruling itself indicates that the benefit was denied “for not proving any days of contributions in the 15 years prior to the date of the causative event,” when the same rule says that at least 730 days are necessary.
As the ruling explains, this worker requested a retirement pension on September 13, 2022. Although he had contributed in the General Regime, in the Special Regime for the Sea and for years in the RETA, he had not accredited valid contributions since August 1, 2004. Therefore, when looking at the period between September 2007 and September 2022, you did not have enough contributions to meet the so-called specific deficiency. The worker, not being satisfied, decided to go to court.
Unpaid contributions do not count to generate the right to pension
Upon reaching the courts, although at first the Social Court number 12 of Bilbao agreed with him and recognized his right to collect the pension, later and after an appeal, the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country revoked that resolution.
The key to the failure is the unpaid fees as a self-employed person. The Court admits that there were many unpaid periods in the RETA, but makes it clear that this does not allow the contribution requirement required to retire to be met. In fact, it expressly cites that, “in the case of the plaintiff affiliated with the RETA, with a multitude of unpaid fees, even if prescribed, it cannot be claimed that these fees not paid before the occurrence of the causative event have the potential to prove the lack.”
Furthermore, it adds that “in the period being calculated, 2 years in the 15 years prior to the triggering event that is the retirement request (09/10/2022 to 09/10/2007), no contributions appear”, so there is “an absence of a specific deficiency to access retirement.”
The court also refuses to apply article 311 of the General Social Security Law to understand that the worker was exempt from contributions upon reaching a certain age. The reason is twofold, since this provision was not applicable at the relevant time of the case and, furthermore, the plaintiff did not reach the years of contributions required for this exemption. The sentence recalls that “he only had contributions for 30 years, 9 months and four days.”
For all these reasons, the TSJ concludes that it does not meet the requirements of article 205.1 b) of the LGSS and revokes the initial ruling, confirming the administrative denial of the retirement pension.