The Supreme Court established the following sentence as a doctrine:complement maternity can be achieved through demographic contribution women or men who meet the conditions specified herein, without regard to the situation where the other parent (or similar person) also has or may have a right to their own perception”, which means it must be enforced. pensions from January 1, 2016 to February 3, 2021, when it is expressly vetoed by law.
The General Assembly of the Social Department is of the opinion that the recognition of one parent’s entitlement to maternity supplement for the demographic contribution should not preclude the other from receiving it if it meets the legal requirements, as marked by the following. the European Union (EU) Court of Justice, which described the contrary as discriminatory.
Supreme Court decision only affects Pensions from January 1, 2016 to February 3, 2021because since then now a royal decree regulating the supplement to reduce the gender gap in pensions has clearly barred concurrent benefit by both parents.
against equality
for the Almighty, “Limit benefit to one parent only (Without a criterion to determine who will be who), alleging that the cause of interest is underage, not only does it ignore tax requirements but will act without regulatory authorization, against the egalitarian conception of a norm cannot rely on exceptions aimed at restoring previous imbalances”.
The Court of Cassation emphasizes that the previous regulation of Article 60 of the General Social Security Law, examined in the case, has completely ignored the issue of what happens if the parent other than the applicant has already benefited from the supplement. “If the legislator wanted to eliminate the interest in such cases, he should have stated this clearly” because he states that if the norm does not require more conditions in matters related to protection, the translator cannot do this either. .
She broke off from being a woman
In addition, the court states: The right to supplement should be recognized regardless of the recipient’s gender, because “to deny a benefit created to compensate for the negative situation experienced by many women would be paradoxical and illogical. to one of them on the grounds that the male parent already received it. about a born right unrelated to the biological situation Therefore, there is no point in dealing with a situation where there is a parent other than the parent acting on their pleasure”.
Almighty also reminds us that: The CJEU found that the previous regulation examined in the judgment (complementary to the demographic contribution) discriminated against men.Therefore, it is not possible to take into account the purpose pursued by the new norm, which comes to overcome it and refuses to rearrange the situations that arose under the old norm. According to the judges, the doctrine they are currently formulating is the one that best matches the case-law on how to end discriminatory situations. not to abolish the right in question, but to extend its ownership to the collectives He said they were discriminated against.
Therefore, the Court of Cassation rejected the request for unification of the doctrine submitted by him. National Institute of Social Security against the judgment of the Galician Supreme Court of Justice which entitles the father to maternity supplement for demographic contribution even though the mother is already receiving it. Social Security argued that the birth attachment for demographic contribution is unique and that only one of the parents can be recognized.