The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of La Rioja issued a ruling rejecting the appeal of the National Institute of Social Security and the General Treasury of Social Security, confirming the decision of the Social Court No. 1 of Logroño that Recognize women’s right to receive a widow’s pension After the death of his partner in February 2024.
As stated in the ruling, the woman requested a widow’s pension on March 4, 2024, which was rejected by the decision of the National Institute of Social Insurance issued on April 12, on the grounds that the applicant He was in a marital relationship with a third party Within two years before death.
Appellant She married in 1991, legally separated in 2000 and divorced in 2022. More than a year and a half before the death of his current partner, with whom he had lived since at least 2012, and who had been registered as a de facto couple on 31 January 2020, more than four years before his death.
Documents sent by various parties show that the deceased was staying at his usual place of residence Shared address With the woman.
Cohabitation and de facto spouses
The TSJR bases its decision because, as explained in its ruling, the regulations determine Two requirements Different and simultaneous conditions to be a beneficiary of the widow’s pension.
one, Stable and uninterrupted cohabitation for at least five years before deathAnd the second, The official adoption of the spouses is de facto By registration or public document two years ago.
The ruling highlights that the legislator does not require that the spouses be married throughout the period of cohabitation free from the obstacle of marriage, But only at the time of death.
The Supreme Court’s unified principle distinguishes between “the system of obtaining a pension through marriage and obtaining it Through de facto spouses, It is the latter that applies to this case. Therefore, considering the possibility of counting previous cohabitation is correct.”
Registration in the municipal registry, made four years ago, is valid It is not invalidated because it was before the divorceProvided that the marriage bond had already expired on the date of death.
The doctrine was challenged before the Supreme Court
The Chamber believes that the requirement for five years of cohabitation has been fully developed Without the bond of marriage “It means introducing a restriction that is not stipulated in the law and is contrary to the aforementioned jurisprudential standard.”
Accordingly, the Court concludes that the plaintiff You meet both the physical requirements for cohabitation and the official registration requirements, And that the INSS decision “caused an incorrect and overly restrictive interpretation of the rule.”
This ruling has a dissenting vote and is not final. It was appealed in cassation Unification of faith Before the Supreme Court.