The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia through the Social Chamber has confirmed the right of a beneficiary to continue collecting the Minimum Vital Income (IMV) which was set at 217.57 euros per month. In this way, it rejects the Social Security claim that requested payment of 4,862.54 euros improperly collected. The ruling shows that an irregularity does not appear, but rather that the problem lies in the way in which the file was reviewed.
As the STSJ CAT 3198/2023 ruling explains, in November 2020 the National Social Security Institute (INSS) recognized this benefit for a man with retroactive effect from the month of June of that year. Later, the beneficiary requested a review because he understood that he was receiving less than his due, alleging, among other reasons, that he had dependent family in Morocco.
When the administration responded, it did not receive the response it expected since in July 2021, the INSS (National Social Security Institute) terminated the benefit and requested that the amount received be returned in full because it understood that the charge was improper.
The argument was that the applicant was living with his brothers, and that This was not communicated at the time of submitting the application.so it should have been considered as part of a coexistence unit and not as an individual beneficiary.
The residence of the brothers in Spain was not proven
The composition of the cohabitation unit is essential when requesting and collecting the IMV since it determines both access to this subsistence benefit and the amount to be paid. In this case, as can be read in the ruling, it was not proven that the brothers were complying with the legal requirements, in particular that of effective residence in Spain, so that they were considered members of the cohabitation unit.
The fact that this was not proven, that is, there was no evidence, made it impossible to justify the withdrawal of the benefit. In addition, the text includes another ruling that, in this case, is procedural.
Both the court of first instance and the TSJC consider that the INSS violated the ‘reformatio in peius’ principle which prohibits worsening the situation of a citizen as a result of an appeal that he himself has presented.
And the beneficiary had gone to have the amount of the aid reviewed because he considered that he was earning too little, and in the end the administration withdrew the IMV and asked him to return what he had collected.
Social Security should have acted differently
The Chamber emphasizes that if it was appreciated that an improper charge was being made by the beneficiary, the INSS should have acted differently, initiating a specific review or sanctioning procedure with the corresponding guarantees, and not take advantage of the claim to adopt a decision such as terminating the benefit.
As the ruling cites, verbatim “the appellant Entity violated (…) that prohibition by taking advantage of the claim of someone who claimed a right in a higher amount to extinguish the initially recognized with a claim for reimbursement of what was already paid; a circumstance that places us even within a sanctioning area that (…) would require the initiation of the corresponding file.”
The Court dismissed the INSS appeal, confirming the previous ruling, which consolidated the plaintiff’s right to continue collecting the IMV. Although the resolution was not final and could be appealed to the Supreme Court.