A Alicante has succeeded that Supreme Court to recognise the right to waive the pension, after receiving the notice of concession, for skeep quoting and then a higher benefit. how is this social room in a sentence that the supreme court has known this Thursday and unites the doctrine. The Supreme Court emphasizes that this is not an irreversible situation or a waiver of the right to retirement.
The question before the circle consisted of d:determine whether it is possible to cancel according to the will of the beneficiary a benefit recognized retirement after your notificationTo be able to claim it later, it may be more convenient for you by increasing your premium period, as explained in the statement made by the Supreme Court.
A The Alicante Court agreed with the applicant, To repeal the National Social Security Administration’s decision recognizing the pension and to order the return of everything it received for this concept.
However The High Court of Justice of the Commonwealth of Valencia overturned this decision when estimating the resource offered by the administration. He argued that it was not possible to waive his pension after recognition, because the only reason to disappear As the retirement pension established in the legal system (in addition to the sanction of loss due to incompatibility) is “lifelong”, death of the pensioner without the possibility of waiving the retirement pension stipulated by law or regulation, contrary to the principle of inalienability Your rights in Article 3 of the General Social Security Law”.
Andalusian precedent
The beneficiary did not compromise and a attractive for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court Decision of the Andalusian High Court of Justiceresponded to a similar claim. In both cases, it was the applicants who, once the pension was granted, requested it be canceled because they were not satisfied with the amount so they could claim it again later. Faced with the negative response of the Valencian High Court, the Andalusian High Court agreed with the claimant, considering that this was not a waiver of legally prohibited rights.
The Supreme Court, with the support of the Prosecutor’s Office, finds that it is the latter of the correct doctrine because of the action prescribed in the sentences being compared. does not constitute a waiver of the right to receive a pension which, as such, would be prohibited by our legal system. “It is true that there is such a possibility. It is not explicitly stated in the standard; However nor expressly prohibited, because the situation described does not in any way constitute a waiver of the right to pension, but when it is in your best interests not to want to take advantage of the amount granted to claim it later, “and other conditions (deficiency and contribution) that may give them higher benefits are given.
For this reason, the court said that “it is not an act that can be considered unlawful, nor can it be understood as a waiver of an unused public Social Security benefit.” with the simple truth of never being demanded. There is no unilateral waiver of the rights granted by the Social Security system.
They add that it should be noted that the application for retirement is not mandatory for those who have reached the normal retirement age; and, on the other hand, that the system itself allows and even encourages prolongation of active life and with it the delay of applying for retirement.