The Supreme Court established a new compensation doctrine for parents who were denied the maternity supplement of their Social Security pension when the European justice recognized this right, in 2019, forcing them to sue in court. After a new decision in Europe, last September, establishing the right to additional compensation for damages to parents, the high court admitted the need for this compensation and set an “equivalent” amount for all cases: 1,800 euros.
Which parents are entitled to compensation for the loss of maternity bonus in their pensions?
A few days after the pioneering judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Galicia, which established a compensation of 1,500 euros, the resolution of the high court was announced this Friday and represents a change in the criteria of the Chamber, previously considered . which is Sufficient payment that parents are given the maternity bonus with retroactive effect, from the start of collecting their pension.
The Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) considered on September 14 that the receipt of the supplement serves to compensate for discrimination based on sex, but considered that Social Security has double discrimination against parents, “also procedurally.” “, by continuing to deny this proportion after the 2019 European ruling and forcing them to report to justice to get it.
Faced with this second discrimination, the European magistrates called on the Spanish courts to award the parents compensation for damages, which “includes costs and attorney’s fees.”
A price: 1,800 euros
The Supreme Court explained that, “in its task of consolidating and formulating jurisprudence, it must also rule on the amount of the aforementioned compensation,” says this new decision dated November 15. The Chamber set a reference for all cases: 1,800 euros.
The judges considered that “since the action of the INSS that created this damage was one and the same for all those affected, it is reasonable to set the same amount of compensation for all of them, without causing any comparative complaints that derived from the possible difference. solutions that “They can create an inequality that is difficult to justify.”
To establish this amount, the Supreme Court focused on the compensation for legal expenses obtained from the Social Security lawsuit, because it maintains that some economic damage caused by discrimination based on sex can be solved with recognition of maternity supplement with effective retroactive.
The magistrates also emphasized that the denial of the question is not a full benefit, such as a pension, but a bonus to it, “therefore the damage to the property in the delay of the receipt to which one is entitled is much less and different kind..”
Therefore, with reference to the maximum cost included in article 235 of the Law regulating social jurisdiction, which is 1,800 euros, the Supreme Court considered that this is the amount “sufficient to compensate the damages obtained” from of this discrimination.
“We consider that this amount allows the comprehensive repair of the damage suffered. The final moral distress or material inconvenience obtained from going to the social jurisdictional bodies is included in such flat- rate payment,” the judges argued.
It should be noted that in this case the Supreme Court was not able to recognize this amount of 1,800 euros, because the decision of the TSJ of Castilla y León that decided the case previously established a payment of 600 euros and the no pensioner. appeal the amount, but does Social Security do it (to try to recover the payment). The magistrates therefore approved the previous sentence, with a payment of 600 euros to the affected person.
Compensation for those who appeal to the courts
The magistrates explained that they understood “that this compensation is available if necessary for the person discriminated by a resolution of the INSS after the STJUE December 19, 2019 who needs to go to the social jurisdiction to obtain compensation for the supplement in question. . ”
The professor of Labor and Social Security Law at the Universitat Oberta Catalunya (UOC) has already assessed the judgment in his blog and considers that the reaction of the Supreme Court is “correct (and quick)” and believes that “the establishment of compensation is homogeneous for all these assumptions” are timely.
“There is no doubt that this is the best antidote to avoid excessive ‘noise’ in judicial resolutions. It is true that this measure, depending on the circumstances of the case, can lead to situations of undercompensation or overcompensation . However, legal certainty also has a value (and without it, a cost)”, so he considered it “very reasonable” for the Supreme Court to combine its criteria.
The question of the specific amount, established at 1,800 euros, is what he considers “may cause more controversy”, with opinions that may be inclined to “a low assessment of this issue.” Ignasi Beltrán emphasized that it should not be forgotten that, due to the number of people involved who were deprived of this Security bonus, the total amount of compensation “will be very high.”