Social security is clear in terms of the requirements to access retirement, demanding, to collect the contributory pension, have at least 15 years quoted, of which at least two must be found within the last fifteen years prior to the causative event. The latter, known as the specific and unknown lack for many, causes many pensions to be denied even with more than 40 years quoted. This is the case of Luis Miguel, a worker to whom the Social Security denied the retirement pension for not complying with the specific lack despite having 26 years and 5 months quoted, a fact that has been confirmed by the Superior Court of Justice of Asturias.
It all begins when Luis Miguel, when he reaches his ordinary retirement age, requests the Social Security of the retirement pension, but this was denied. Social Security explained in the letter of resolution, that it had been denied, since despite having 26 years and 5 months quoted, it did not comply with the specific lack, which is regulated in article 205.1 B of the General Law of Social Security (LGSS). Specifically, this had only 35 days quoted from 730 days (2 years) that are demanded by law.
You may be interested
Natalia de Santiago, finance expert: “Many people live well from public pensions and although we complain, the pension system in Spain is very good”
Carole Taylor, retired: “I am a 72 -year -old student; they should not cancel university loans for those over 60,”
Luis Miguel claimed and explained that he had been registered as a employment applicant, but from Social Security they explained that although in several subsequent periods he was registered as a employment applicant, there were prolonged interruptions in said registration. For Social Security, these gaps were a non -compliance with the specific lack requirement, an indispensable condition for accessing tax retirement. Given this situation, he decided to go to court
Did not meet the requirements to access the pension
The Social Court number 6 of Oviedo gave the reason to Social Security, that is, it did not meet the requirements to access the pension, specifically the one we have mentioned above, 205.1 B), which establishes the need to prove at least two years of contribution within the fifteen before the causative fact.
Thus, the Court explained that, where appropriate, the calculation made by Social Security reflected only 35 days of contribution in that period, far from the legal minimum. In addition, although throughout his working life he had reached more than 26 years and 5 months of contributions, his last works dated 2013 and presented prolonged interruptions in his registration as a job seeker, which prevented complying with the so -called specific lack.
The parenthesis doctrine
Given this resolution, the worker decided parenthesis doctrine. This figure allows to leave the periods out of the calculation in which the worker could not quote for causes outside his will, as in cases of involuntary unemployment with continued registration in employment services.
Despite this rule, the court explained that to benefit from this doctrine it is necessary that the interruptions be brief or justified by exceptional circumstances, as a real disease or impossibility of registering. In the case of Luis Miguel, there was a period of 17 months without being registered as a job seeker and without proving any reason that justified that inactivity. In addition, the dates that alleged as affected by the pandemic did not coincide with the periods of absence in the Employment Registry.
Thus, this worker would be “a priori” without the right to the retirement pension, unless he meets the requirements and request it later. That is, Social Security does not deny it forever, since it can be accessed, but it is necessary to meet all the requirements.