Self-employed workers who have a permanent disability recognized by judicial means after an initial denial of Social Security have the right to have their withdrawal from the Special Regime for Self-Employed Workers (RETA) applied from the date of the first medical report that proposed the disability, and not from the date of the ruling. The Supreme Court has established doctrine in this sense, clarifying that this entails the right to “refund of fees paid” during the entire intermediate period.
It must be said that the General Treasury of Social Security (TGSS) had been maintaining that the leave could only be effective once the worker stopped receiving the temporary disability benefit and became a pensioner. Even so, the Supreme Court ruling explains that the worker cannot be left unprotected and that forcing him to request leave before a final judicial resolution is “impossible to comply, given the circumstances of the case.”
You may be interested
A man must return 21,309.80 euros to Social Security for making the subsidy for people over 52 compatible with the pension for permanent disability even though the error was made by the INSS
A man manages to make permanent disability compatible with partial retirement and a job, earning around 3,172.61 euros after Social Security denied him
A right that derives from the protection of the worker
If we look at the regulations, the debate focuses on what the effective date of the discharge should be when a permanent disability is administratively denied but later granted by a judge. Given this situation, the Supreme Court interprets that it cannot harm the worker who, in order not to be left helpless, is forced to remain on temporary disability and continue contributing while awaiting the ruling.
Thus, the High Court reasons that forcing a self-employed person in this situation to withdraw from the RETA “would have meant his withdrawal from the Social Security system and, ultimately, his lack of protection.” For all these reasons, it establishes that the date of cessation of activity is, for all purposes, that of the original opinion-proposal of the disability assessment team or EVI, considering the fees paid since then as a “refund of undue income derived from an inappropriate contribution.”
An example in which Social Security was obliged to return the contributions to a worker
The case that has given rise to this Supreme Court ruling (STS 4055/2025) in which Arcadio, a self-employed worker whom the assessment team proposed for absolute permanent disability on June 28, 2018. After being denied, he had to resort to justice while still being registered and contributing.
The General Treasury of Social Security discharged him ex officio on October 30, 2019, once the sentence was final. At this point, Arcadio demanded that his discharge be backdated to June 2018 and that his fees be returned, but the Administration refused. First, the Superior Court of Justice of Aragon agreed with him.
Now, the Supreme Court has definitively corrected the criteria of Social Security and in its ruling confirms the appellant’s right to withdrawal “on June 28, 2018, and to the refund of the contributions paid therein since the aforementioned date.” This consolidates a precedent that benefits many other self-employed workers in similar situations.