An administrative error by Spanish Social Security led to a request for the return of almost 120 thousand euros to a retired woman, but the court considered that the money was not received improperly, a relevant decision that also raises the question: what if a situation like this happened in Portugal?
The case involves a retired teacher who managed to avoid the return of 118,497.12 euros, after the Superior Court of Justice of Castilla-La Mancha ruled in favor of her, albeit partially, in a dispute with Spanish Social Security.
The court decision concluded that, although the pensioner had received for several years a type of retirement that no longer corresponded to her, the error was exclusively on the part of the Administration and did not result from any intentional action or bad faith on the part of the beneficiary, according to the Spanish digital newspaper Noticias Trabajo.
A mistake that started years before
According to the ruling, it all started in 2013, when the teacher agreed to partial retirement, with an 85% reduction in working hours. In 2017, upon turning 65, Social Security was fully aware that the worker had reached the legal age for normal retirement.
At that time, the old-age pension should have been awarded in full. However, due to an error on the part of the Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, the partial pension continued to be paid automatically for another five years.
Revaluations and payments maintained by the State
During this period, the pensioner even received annual pension revaluations, which reinforced the conviction that the values were correctly allocated. The retired woman never hid information or provided false data to Social Security.
It was only in December 2022 that the Social Security Treasury detected the error and demanded the return of the amounts paid between 2019 and 2022, creating an unexpected debt of almost 120 thousand euros, according to the same source.
“Improper” charge or just “incorrect”?
The central point of the court decision was the distinction between an undue payment and an incorrect payment. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence establishes that there is only an obligation to return amounts when the beneficiary had no right to the benefit received. In this specific case, the court understood that the pensioner was entitled, since 2017, to a normal old-age pension, which would even be worth more than the partial pension she continued to receive.
Thus, there was no unjust enrichment. On the contrary, the beneficiary ended up receiving less than she could have received if the Administration had corrected the situation in a timely manner. Based on this understanding, the court annulled the obligation to return the amounts claimed by Social Security, considering that the error was exclusively administrative, says the source previously cited.
Limits on retroactivity of payments
Still, the decision was not entirely in favor of the pensioner. A lower court had recognized the right to retroactively receive the 15% pension difference since 2017, but that part was corrected.
The Superior Court clarified that the economic effects of a pension can only be retroactive, at most, three months before the date of the formal request, and it is not possible to claim differences relating to several years, in accordance with .
What if it happened in Portugal?
In Portugal, a similar situation would be analyzed in light of Social Security legislation and the jurisprudence of administrative and tax courts. The applicable regime is set out in Decree-Law No. 133/88, which establishes that undue receipt gives rise to the obligation of refund and also establishes limits and guarantees, namely, providing that, in certain cases, benefits received unduly received more than three years ago are not required.
When the payment results exclusively from an error on the part of the services, without any concealment or false declaration on the part of the beneficiary, the courts tend to apply the principle of protection of trust and good faith.
Administration error and good faith of the beneficiary
Portuguese jurisprudence has distinguished between situations of fraud and situations of administrative error. Whenever it is demonstrated that the citizen acted in good faith and that the error is attributable to the Administration, the demand for refund may be considered illegal or disproportionate.
Furthermore, the Code of Administrative Procedure provides that the Administration must assume the consequences of its own errors, especially when it has created a legitimate expectation in the citizen.
Retroactivity also has limits in Portugal
As in Spain, in Portugal there are limits to the retroactivity of the financial effects of social benefits. As a general rule, settlements only take effect from a certain moment and do not allow claims from several years ago, except for very specific exceptions provided for by law.
Also read:
