The Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha has ruled in favor of a man who was forced by the State Public Employment Service (SEPE) to return 17,864 euros for collecting at the same time the subsidy for those over 52 years of age and the total permanent disability pension. The SEPE alleged that the approval of the subsidy was a failure of the administration itself and therefore, it demanded a full refund of the money.
As this month’s ruling explains, it all begins in January 2020 when Daniel requested unemployment benefits for those over 52 years of age. In his application he stated in detail that he was already receiving a total permanent disability pension, that is, one that allows it to be made compatible with a job, as long as it is compatible with the disability.
Despite having this information, the agency approved the subsidy for unemployed people over 52 years of age. As the ruling explains, he received 577 euros in disability, so he did not exceed the limit of 75% of the interprofessional minimum wage.
The problem occurred in May 2023 when the SEPE began a process to revoke this subsidy. The main reason was to verify that the contributions used to grant the beneficiary’s disability pension could not also be used to grant the subsidy for those over 52 years of age. For this reason, the SEPE demanded that Daniel return 17,864 euros corresponding to the collections for the period between January 15, 2020 and April 30, 2023.
The error was from the SEPE
Both in the first instance and later before the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha they ruled in favor of the worker, that is, he was not obliged to return any money. To exempt him from this obligation, he applied the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (the case known as Cakarevic), which protects citizens in good faith against errors by the public administration, especially when the return of the amounts may entail a disproportionate burden, in this case almost 18,000 euros.
The judicial resolution explains that the error in the improper recognition of the subsidy was “attributable solely to SEPE” and highlights that the entity intended to demand reimbursement “without the managing entity assuming any consequence of its own error.” The magistrates assessed very positively that the beneficiary acted with total honesty by not making any “false or inaccurate allegation that misled the SEPE.”
Regarding this ruling, it is necessary to understand that the courts considered that forcing the defendant to return such an amount of money through monthly discounts on his meager disability pension would mean a very big blow to his finances. Thus, the court explained that the SEPE must assume the consequences of its erroneous actions “given the economic precariousness in which the defendant finds himself” thus managing to safeguard the subsistence of a person who acted correctly from day one.