Sometimes, public organizations such as the State Public Employment Service (SEPE) or Social Security that manage benefits, subsidies or aid demand that their beneficiaries return the amounts collected, since they were not entitled to them. It is a delicate situation, because this claim can arrive months after the recognition of the aid and force the citizen to face an unexpected debt.
Article 55 of the General Social Security Law establishes that those who have improperly received benefits “will be obliged to repay the amount.” Now, the courts have been outlining an exception for certain cases in which the improper collection was not the fault of the beneficiary, but rather a consequence of an exclusive ruling by the Administration.
This possibility has gained strength as a result of what is known as the Cakarevic doctrine. Its origin is in a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights issued on April 26, 2018 against Croatia. In it, the court understood that it was not fair to burden the citizen with all the consequences of an error committed by the authorities, especially when she had acted in good faith and the amounts received were intended to cover essential expenses.
Demonstrate good faith
In Spain, the Supreme Court has accepted this line in a 2024 ruling on an unemployment benefit recognized in error by the SEPE. The High Court did not say that any aid improperly collected is automatically forgiven, but it did open the door to avoiding repayment when several very specific elements occur.
The first is that the beneficiary has not caused the error. In fact, the ruling highlights that the worker did not contribute to the recognition of the benefit “by making false allegations or any act contrary to good faith.” That is, it is not enough to have received aid by mistake. It must also be clear that the citizen did not hide data or deceive the Administration.
The second factor is the nature of the aid. The Supreme Court took into account that it was a benefit that “satisfies basic subsistence needs” and that the amount received was “relatively modest.” It is not a minor detail, since the court assesses the real impact that it would have to demand a refund from a person who used that money to cover essential expenses.
Added to this is a third decisive element. The error had to be attributable “solely” to the SEPE. That idea is what supports the core of this doctrine. As summarized in the legal commentary published in the BOE, “errors attributable solely to the authorities should not be remedied at the expense of the citizen,” especially when the citizen acted in good faith and the benefit was linked to a situation of need.
Therefore, it cannot be said that any worker who has improperly received aid will be exempt from returning it. What can happen is that you will not have to refund it if you can prove that there was no bad faith, that the error was solely on the part of the Administration and that this benefit was intended to cover basic needs. Therein lies the key to a doctrine that is already beginning to lead the way in the courts.