The Supreme Court establishes that denying the child supplement in the pension to a retiree because the mother already receives it constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex. With this ruling, the High Court agrees with a Passive Class pensioner and opens the door to new claims from men to whom the National Social Security Institute rejected this supplement due to a gender gap or better known as “maternity”, despite meeting the requirements.
According to ruling STS 933/2026 (which can be consulted at this link from the Judiciary), the affected person had his retirement pension recognized with economic effects since July 1, 2017 and met all the required requirements, being the father of three children. Even so, his request was rejected and only after reaching the Supreme Court did he manage to have the complement recognized, with arrears from that same date and legal interest from March 8, 2022, when he requested it administratively, that is, from the moment of the request.
Who can claim this denied plugin?
Despite being the same complement, we have to have two clear stages. The first is the old maternity supplement, applicable to pensions earned between January 1, 2016 and February 3, 2021. In this period, the Supreme Court establishes doctrine and indicates that this supplement can be enjoyed by both parents at the same time if both parents meet the requirements, so it cannot be denied to the father just because the mother already collects it.
The second stage is the supplement to reduce the gender gap, in force since February 4, 2021. On this point, Alfonso Muñoz Cuenca, a Social Security official, has explained that men who were recognized with a contributory pension since that date and were denied the child supplement can request it again. The reason is that, after the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union of May 15, 2025, Social Security adapted its criteria and eliminated the additional conditions that had been required of men.
The new Social Security management criteria (can be consulted at this link) also clarifies that, if the male parent’s pension is prior to May 15, 2025, the economic effects of the recognition go back to the pension’s effective date. If it is later, the general retroactivity provided for in the law applies. This change affects all pensions, including Passive Classes.
Therefore, anyone who has a pension between 2016 and 2021 and was denied the old supplement, or who since 2021 saw their request for the gender gap supplement rejected because they are a man, can review their case. In many cases, the claim not only allows you to recover the supplement, but also collect arrears from the date of effect of the pension itself.