The Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has set that the Widow’s pension of the law of Passive classes, In the cases where there is a concurrence of beneficiaries and a consequent distribution of their amount, it must become charged in its full amount by one of them After the death of the other person with whom he shared.
In this way, the Supreme has estimated the appeal of a woman to whom the General Directorate of Costs of the Ministry of Finance He denied the revision of the widow’s pension that had recognized after the death of the woman with whom the amount of the same was distributedand that it was the man’s first wife of which the petitioner was a current woman when he died.
He Superior Court of Justice of Madridbefore whom the woman turned the refusal of the Treasury, also rejected his resource When considering, among other arguments, “that the increase in the pension he requested was not contemplated in any legal precept, as was the case with extraordinary pensions originated as a consequence of acts of terrorism.”
However, the Supreme Court, in a judgment of which Judge José Manuel Bandrés has been speaking, has stood out, in coincidence with the doctrine of the Social Chamber of the High Court, that it is not properly a case of accrection of the pension since “There is only a pension that corresponds originally and entirely to the supéstitite spouse and, Only in cases of concurrence with other beneficiaries, it must be distributed as the norm contemplates“
“Once the death of the divorced spouse has been produced And, therefore, the cause for which the amount of the pension was not fully satisfied to the supervious widow, This is restored in its original dimension“, is collected in the sentence.
Similarly, it is added that the lack of a specific regulatory provision in the State Passive Classes Lawthat contemplates the legal regime applicable to the assumptions of concurrence of beneficiaries of the widowhood pension in the case of death survey of one of the beneficiaries, “it is not an obice” to fix as a doctrine that the regulations on passive classes of the State are interpreted in an integrative sense that allows to cover the normative lagoon in line with the Constitution and the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Specifically, with the articles 9.2, 50 and 103.3 of the Constitution, of which the principle of social solidarity is inferred in the determination of the passive rights of retired or retired officials, and articles 21 and 25 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantee the right of the elderly to a dignified and independent life.
In this way, in the judgment it is established that these articles must be interpreted “in the sense that in the assumptions of concurrence of beneficiaries of the cause of passive rights, after extinguished by death the right to receive the widowhood pension by the divorced spouse of the deceased or the current spouse, the beneficiary supervises, which meets the requirements required in said provision, recovers in all its breadth the original and full right of the amount of the pensionand, consequently, Your right to collection of the entire corresponding widow’s pension“
Therefore, the high court has estimated the resource of women, which It charged 48.8% of the widow’s pension –The remaining percentage was charged by the deceased ex -wife – and has recognized his right to receive, from the date of the death of the person with whom the amount of the widowhood pension was distributed, the full amount of the same (100 percent).
