The Superior Court of Justice of Murcia has proved the Public State Employment Service (SEPE) and forces a man to return 13,210.65 euros for improper charges, after receiving the subsidy for people over 52 when he was already a beneficiary of A permanent disability pension. The subsidy was initially approved based on erroneous information, issuing the National Social Security Institute (INSS) later a corrected report where its pensioner status was notified.
It all begins on April 25, 2019, when the SEPE approved the subsidy man, based on an initial INSS report indicating that he met the generic and specific contribution periods required. Subsequently, on December 14, 2021, the INSS issued a new certificate that contradicted the initial report, indicating that it did not gather the necessary contribution periods.
You may be interested
The SEPE removes the subsidy for over 52 years and forces to return 9,441.42 euros to an unemployed after exceeding the income limit for receiving an inheritance and its widow’s pension
What is better to collect minimum vital income or subsidy for over 52 years thinking about retirement?
It also stated that he was a pensioner of total permanent disability since February 2016, that is, from a date prior to the granting of the subsidy. This pension, which amounted to 732.60 euros in January 2023, was more beneficial than The unemployment subsidyas stated in Judgment 1074/2025. For this reason, the SEPE ordered the return of the benefit, which was charging from April 25, 2019 until the end of October 2021, receiving a total of 13,210.65 euros.
Did not meet the requirements of the subsidy
The Social Court No. 1 of Murcia, in its judgment of January 23, 2024, estimated the demand of the SEPE and declared the obligation of man to return 13,210.65 euros for improper collection of the subsidy, during the period of April 25, 2019 until the end of October 2021.
The Court concluded that this was not in a situation of extreme precariousness by receiving the total permanent disability pension since 2016 and, therefore, did not meet the requirements to receive the unemployment subsidy according to article 274.4 of the General Law of Social Security.
Murcia TSJ orders the return of the subsidy
Not in accordance with the sentence, the man filed an appeal for supplication before the Superior Court of Justice of Murcia, claiming that article 110 of Law 39/2015 had been infringed, articles 9.3 and 10.2 of the Spanish Constitution and the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), with special mention to the Judgment of the ECHR of April 26, 2018 (Cakarevic issue against Croatia).
The man, although he recognized that he did not meet the requirements to perceive the subsidy, argued that he had acted in good faith and should not exclusively bear the consequences of the error of the INSS and the SEPE. However, the court dismissed its appeal, giving the reason to the Sepe.
The TSJ of Murcia referred to the jurisprudential doctrine established from Law 66/1997 (current article 55.3 of the LGSS), which establishes the obligation to reintegrate the unduly perceived benefits “regardless of the cause that originated the undue perception, including the assumptions of review of the benefits by error imputable to the managing entity”. This regulation ceased the previous jurisprudence that allowed us to weigh the good faith of the beneficiary and the delay of the administration.
As for the doctrine of the Tedh that appealed, although the error was of the administration and the man did not hide information, the court considers that there is proportionality in the decision to review the benefit and agree on the reimbursement. It is so because he received a total permanent disability pension before requesting unemployment subsidy, which meant that he had income and was not in a situation of “extreme precariousness” or economic deficiencies similar to those of the Cakarevic case he had alleged in his defense.
In addition, the Court indicated that, unlike what happened in the case examined by the ECHR, in the Spanish legal system it is possible to request postponements or subdivisions of the payment regarding the return of these undue charges, and the guarantee of minimum goods for subsistence is respected. Thus, his situation was not comparable to the case he exposed.
For all these reasons, he dismissed the appeal and gave the reason to the SEPE, confirming his obligation to return 13,210.65 euros for undue charges of the subsidy. Against this judgment, a appeal for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court could be filed.