The Supreme Court has issued a sentence in which the claims of the State Public Employment Service (SEPE) dismissed so that a worker returned 12,000 euros that he received for an error of the administration for unemployment subsidy for over 55 years. The key to the magistrates is that the affected person was unaware that he had no right to help, since Social Security had accredited that he complied with the minimum price to perceive it.
The failureof which Europa Press reports, confirms and declares a previous sentence of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM) that gave the worker against the SEPE.
The public body appealed in cassation to the Supreme, contrasting another judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC) that revoked the right to unemployment subsidy for over 55 years to a worker who was granted by mistake, ordering the reimbursement of undue benefits.
The affected person was unaware that he had no right
However, the Supreme appreciates an important difference between both cases. While the worker who was revoked the subsidy was aware that he did not meet the requirements to receive it, without doing anything to avoid charging it, in the case now judged the affected person was not aware that he was charging him erroneously, since the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) initially certified that he met the required price requirements for his perception.
“It is not the same, certainly, to have knowledge that certain amounts are being unduly perceived – as expressly stated in the contrast judgment – that has no knowledge of such circumstance – as is the case of the judgment appealed.”
“From the above it could be inferred that the different failures of the comparative sentences can be explained by the different facts that are accredited in them, especially relief that we are now considering the knowledge or not knowledge that the payments were improper,” the sentence collects.
The Cakarevic doctrine
The events date back to April 2015. On the 15th of that month the unemployment subsidy for people over 55 years was recognized until the age to access the retirement pension in any of its modalities was reached. Previously, on April 9 of that same year, the INSS had issued a certification by proving that the applicant complied with the generic and specific price period for the collection of the subsidy, which he was receiving for several years. The total amount collected reached 12,030.84 euros.
On February 28, 2018, the INSS issued a new certificate indicating that at the time of the application, the worker did not meet the specific price period to be entitled to the retirement tax pension and that such a certificate annulled and replaced the issued on April 9, 2015.
The SEPE then filed a lawsuit against the worker to return the unduly perceived amounts and a Court of Madrid gave the reason to the agency in the first instance, but the affected person resorted to the TSJM, which failed against the SEPE, considering his right to keep the 12,000 euros undue perceived because of the social security error. It was then that the Sepe turned to the Supreme Court.
The High Court fails against the agency’s claims and is used for the so -called ‘Cakarevic doctrine’. This doctrine comes from a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, of 2018, which establishes that if the error is attributable exclusively to the Administration and there was no bad faith of the beneficiary, it is not appropriate to return the money in unemployment benefit by unduly perceived unemployment.
The defense of the affected claimed the application of this doctrine, highlighting “the good faith of the beneficiary of the benefit, the course of almost four years since it was recognized and the fact that it contravenes the principle of equity to make an error of the managing entity on the beneficiary, causing a serious breakdown in its economy the return of what was claimed”.
#supreme #worker #euros #unemployment #subsidy #charged #administrative #error
