To access voluntary anticipation retirement, it is not enough to prove a minimum of 35 years quoted, but it is necessary that the resulting pension, once the reducing coefficient is applied, exceeds the amount of the minimum pension that would correspond to the beneficiary depending on their family situation when they turn 65. Even so, there are exceptions, such as a worker who, after having quoted more than 40 years to Social Security, saw how his early retirement at 63 was initially denied, but that the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León has finally forced to grant.
Everything begins when this worker, having quoted more than 40 years, asked social security voluntary retirement at 63 years of age, but this was denied. The reason is, that the amount of the pension that corresponded to it, once the reducing coefficients were applied, did not exceed the minimum amount required for those who have a spouse in charge, being this indispensable requirement and which is reflected in the Social Security Website.
You may be interested
Retirees explode against Social Security: “They say it costs a lot
Social Security will add years of contribution to workers who after a dismissal access forced early retirement so that the pension is not harmed by the reducing coefficient
Social Security explained in the letter of resolution that his wife depended economically on him, since he only perceived an unemployment subsidy for over 52 years, which raised the amount of the Minimum pension to overcome for people with spouse in charge.
The spouse in charge did not depend on the pension
The worker not as he submitted a claim to social security which was dismissed, so he decided to resort to the courts. In the Social Court No. 1 of Segovia this gave the worker right to his right to retire at age 63. The court explained that social security had incorrectly applied the concept of “spouse in charge”, since the wife only perceived a subsidy for people over 52 years, and not a public pension, which affects the minimum amount of required pension.
Social Security not as he decided to resort to the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla y León, explaining that it did not meet the requirements in accordance with article 208.1.c) of the General Social Security Law, which as we have said requires that “the amount of the pension to be received must be superior to the amount of the minimum pension that would correspond to the interested party for their family situation to the fulfillment of the 65 years of age”.
Even so, the TSJ did not give the reason to Social Security and explain that the unemployment subsidies “do not have the nature of public pension” and that, to consider a spouse as an economically dependent, it is essential that the joint income does not exceed the limits set in the regulations. In addition, to give more weight to its reasoning, it was based on article 43.3 of Law 6/2018, of General State Budgets, and article 59 of the LGSS, concluding that “by exceeding family income the established legal limit, there is no economic dependence of the spouse”, so the minimum applicable pension is that of a spouse not in charge.
Therefore, the worker will have the right to retire at 63 and to collect his retirement tax pension. The key to this sentence is that perceiving the subsidy for over 52 years does not make the spouse “not in charge”, since said subsidy does not have public pension consideration. However, their income is added to the family income computation to determine whether or not there is economic dependence.