The State Public Employment Service (SEPE) would assume the consequences of its errors when it has paid unemployment benefits that were not due as long as there was no deception on the part of the applicant and these should not be repaired, in principle, at the expense of the affected person. especially when no other conflicting private interest is at stake.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) maintains, in a ruling of April 26, 2018 (?akarevi? v Croatia case), that errors attributable exclusively to state authorities should not, in principle, be remedied at the expense of the person affected , especially when no other conflicting private interest is at stake. This argument serves as the basis for the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, in a ruling of October 15, 2024, to agree with the beneficiary of an unemployment benefit who did not meet the required minimum contribution period and to consider that the reimbursement of benefits paid by the SEPE.
The ECtHR ruling declared that the ordering the applicant to repay the amount of unemployment benefits paid in error by the competent authority It represented an excessive individual burden for her, which is why she declared Article 1 of the Additional Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, made in Paris on March 20, 1952, violated.
This article establishes that “No one may be deprived of his property and rights except for a justified cause of public utility or social interest, through the corresponding compensation and in accordance with the provisions of the laws.”
In this regard, Spain, in accordance with article 64 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, to avoid any uncertainty regarding the application of article 1 of the Protocol, has made a reservation, to the light of article 33 of the Spanish Constitution (BOE of January 12, 1991), which establishes the recognition of the right to private property and inheritance; that the social function of these rights will delimit their content, in accordance with the laws; and what interests us in this case, that: “No one may be deprived of their property and rights except for a justified cause of public utility or social interest.through the corresponding compensation and in accordance with the provisions of the laws.”
The rulings of the Supreme Court No. 530/2024, of April 4; 631/2024, of April 29 and 812/2024, of May 30, among others, examined cases in which a 75% reduction in working hours had been agreed in the ERTE consultation period for economic, technical, organizational or production as a consequence of COVID-19.
The SEPE recognized the unemployment benefit. Subsequently, the autonomous body notified the beneficiary of the proposal to revoke benefits because the reduction in his working hours exceeded 70%.
The reasons argued by the Court refer to the fact that the worker did not contribute, in any way, to the resolution by which the unemployment benefit was recognized: no false allegations or any act contrary to good faith were made.
On the contrary, the labor authority was openly and transparently informed that the reduction in working hours was 75%. On the other hand, it was argued that unemployment benefits also satisfy basic subsistence needs. Likewise, it can be stated that the amounts received and now claimed were relatively modest and that the situation of the worker has not been considered either, especially in the difficult context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thus, it was concluded that the error in the improper recognition of the unemployment benefit was attributable only to the SEPE and, however, the worker was required to return what she received. so that the unemployment management entity avoided any consequences of its own error, and the entire burden fell solely on the interested party.
For this reason, the ruling was aimed at pointing out that “the initial resolution of the SEPE placed the entire burden of the error committed on the worker, forcing her to repay the amount received, which led to the application of the aforementioned ECtHR doctrine.”
In the case of the sentence of October 15, the reporting magistrate, the Hon. Mr. Juan Molins García-Atance, applies these same arguments, adapting them to the unemployment benefit for those over 55 years of age. When he reached the required age (55 years), not having a job or sufficient income, He applied for unemployment benefits by informing the autonomous body of his income..
The appellant was unemployed and in a difficult situation, given his low income and his age. Furthermore, the amount received as unemployment benefit is very modest (between 4,618.22 and 5,163.24 euros per year), so it is assumed that it has been consumed by the beneficiary to meet his basic subsistence expenses.
And since the improper recognition of the unemployment benefit is attributable only to the SEPE, which required the beneficiary to fully return what was received, but avoiding any consequences of its own error, which is considered to cause serious harm to the beneficiary.
Consequently, the Supreme Court’s ruling concludes by pointing out, as we said at the beginning of this comment, that: “Errors attributable exclusively to state authorities should not be remedied, in principle, at the expense of the person concerned, especially when no other conflicting private interest is at stake.”
#responsibility #SEPE #errors #doctrine #Supreme #Court
