Post by nijhumnishita033 on Jan 10, 2024 6:57:38 GMT -5
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) declared in a ruling of December 12, 2019 (case C-450/18, WA against INSS) that the regulation of the maternity supplement provided for in article 60 of the General Law of the Social Security (LGSS) was discriminatory . This regulation recognized an economic contribution in favor of women who had had two or more children, but not for men in the same situation. As a consequence of the aforementioned European ruling, the maternity supplement in contributory social security pensions is now also recognized for men who meet the same requirements demanded of women. Recently, the Supreme Court has ruled on retroactivity in the right to collect said supplement.
Specifically, the Plenary Session of the Fourth Chamber has determined that said benefit must be applied from the entry into force of the regulations , that is, from 2015 and not from the publication of the European Phone Number Data resolution that interprets it, as Social Security was doing. until now. "The CJEU declared that the regulation of the maternity supplement was discriminatory" (Photo: CJEU) Judgment of February 17, 2022 The ruling of February 17, 2022 resolves the case of a pensioner with four children, who is recognized as having the right to the maternity supplement provided for in article 60 of the General Social Security Law (LGSS). The debate that has arisen focuses on whether article 53.
1 LGSS should be applied, which establishes a retroaction of three months from the date of the request, or if, on the contrary, the dies a quo should be set on the date of publication of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of December 12, 2019 The contrast ruling that justifies the appeal for the unification of the doctrine is that of the Social Chamber of the TSJ of the Basque Country of March 2, 2021 (rec. 177/2021). Regarding a debate similar to the one that arises in this case - date of economic effects -, the supplication chamber of the Basque Country, reproducing previous pronouncements, understood article 32.6 of Law 40/2015 to be applicable , considering that the date of economic effects It could not go back beyond the date of publication of the CJEU ruling.
Specifically, the Plenary Session of the Fourth Chamber has determined that said benefit must be applied from the entry into force of the regulations , that is, from 2015 and not from the publication of the European Phone Number Data resolution that interprets it, as Social Security was doing. until now. "The CJEU declared that the regulation of the maternity supplement was discriminatory" (Photo: CJEU) Judgment of February 17, 2022 The ruling of February 17, 2022 resolves the case of a pensioner with four children, who is recognized as having the right to the maternity supplement provided for in article 60 of the General Social Security Law (LGSS). The debate that has arisen focuses on whether article 53.
1 LGSS should be applied, which establishes a retroaction of three months from the date of the request, or if, on the contrary, the dies a quo should be set on the date of publication of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of December 12, 2019 The contrast ruling that justifies the appeal for the unification of the doctrine is that of the Social Chamber of the TSJ of the Basque Country of March 2, 2021 (rec. 177/2021). Regarding a debate similar to the one that arises in this case - date of economic effects -, the supplication chamber of the Basque Country, reproducing previous pronouncements, understood article 32.6 of Law 40/2015 to be applicable , considering that the date of economic effects It could not go back beyond the date of publication of the CJEU ruling.