Until a few months ago, male pensioners who claimed the complement of article 60 of the General Social Security Law could be left without the additional compensation of 1,800 euros if Social Security rectified at the last moment. The sequence was that the applicant presented the administrative claim, Social Security did not respond within three months, the lawyer filed a lawsuit and, just before the trial, the agency issued the resolution recognizing the supplement. Well, with this rectification, Social Security claimed that it was not appropriate to pay the additional compensation, and many judges accepted the argument.
In this sense, the lawyer Miriam Ruiz Acosta, of Legal Commitment He explained in a video how the Supreme Court has closed that door and confirms that the compensation of 1,800 euros remains in full as long as the applicant has had to go to trial.
The supplement for demographic contribution regulated in article 60 of the General Social Security Law was initially recognized only for women who had been mothers of two or more children. Now, as the Social Security official, Alfonso Muñoz Cuenca, also explained, the Court of Justice of the European Union declared it discriminatory for men, thus opening the door for many male pensioners to claim it.
The same thing happened later with the supplement for reducing the gender gap, which replaced the previous one since 2021. The lawyer makes an important clarification at this point, “you can only collect one of these two supplements depending on which one corresponds to you”, making it clear that both figures are not cumulative.
The three-month period and how to access the compensation of 1,800 euros
When a beneficiary submits a request to pay the supplement, Social Security has a legal period of three months to resolve it. As Ruiz Acosta explains in the video, that deadline is systematically missed because the body is collapsed. Once the deadline has expired without a response, the request is deemed to have been denied due to administrative silence and the beneficiary is obliged to file a lawsuit.
Both the CJEU and the Supreme Court have established in previous rulings that when the affected person is forced to go to court to obtain recognition of the right, they are entitled to additional compensation set at a flat rate of 1,800 euros for the violation of fundamental rights.
The change introduced by the Supreme Court and why it matters to the applicant
The ruling 310/2026 of the Supreme Court, of March 25, reiterates the doctrine of STS 53/2026 and clarifies that late recognition by the INSS does not allow a reduction of the 1,800 euros. The case analyzed was that of a retirement pensioner, father of three children, who was denied the supplement due to administrative silence and who filed a lawsuit in August 2023.
Social Security finally recognized his right through a resolution of March 2024, before the trial took place. The Superior Court of Justice of Madrid had reduced the compensation to 600 euros, considering that the main claim was already satisfied. The high court corrects this criterion and raises the amount to 1,800 euros in full.
The Supreme Court links this criterion with the ruling of the CJEU in case C-113/22, of September 14, 2023, which requires full compensation when the beneficiary has had to litigate to obtain a right that European jurisprudence already recognized. This reparation includes the damage derived from discrimination, the uncertainty due to the lack of administrative response and the expenses associated with the judicial procedure. The flat-rate amount of 1,800 euros is set precisely to avoid disparate solutions between courts and so that compensation does not depend on the moment in which the INSS rectifies.
The conclusion that the lawyer conveys to her followers is direct. “Those of you who have claimed this supplement and the three-month period to resolve it has already passed, file the claim because then you will be entitled to that additional compensation. Even if Social Security tells you to wait because they will end up resolving it, since what they want is for you not to file the claim so as not to have to pay you that additional compensation.”warns Ruiz Acosta.