The Supreme denies the collection of minimum income with retroactive character for meeting the requirements later

The Supreme Court (TS) denies the minimum vital income (IMV) to people who, even being at risk of social exclusion, shared housing with other people with whom they were not a couple or members of their family, although from February 2021 the rule enabled this option.

The High Court, in a judgment of January 15, refuses to grant this entry to a woman who requested it in June 2020. The affected was recognized by the City Council as a person at risk of social exclusion. However, Social Security denied him the minimum income for living with a friend, owner of the house, with whom he was not a de facto couple, he was not married, nor was he a family.

The Supreme Court recalls that Royal Decree-Law of May 29, 2020 that regulated this income did not allow it to perceive those people who lived with others but who were not in fact married or married.

The Chamber indicates that the legislator, to clarify the dark points of the regulations and cover more people who could need this help, Approved another Royal Decree-Law in February 2021 where people already allowed people at risk of social exclusion to live with other people alone or other families with whom they had no relationship to access the benefit.

The court indicates that The new standard did not add any retroactive transitory measure that he remedied the situation of lack of protection in which some citizens remained. Therefore, he rejects that the woman can receive the minimum income since when she requested it in June 2020 she did not meet the requirements to collect it. “Estimating the provision debated in an assumption not contemplated by the coverage regulation would imply significantly interfering in the exposed normative order,” he says.

And he adds that an intervention of such caliber “is far from what the constitutional organization of the State entrusts to the judges and courts.” “Its function is the application and interpretation of the norm, but not the creation of law,” he says, which corresponds to the legislator.