Two decisions published on December 20 reveal that government-imposed embargoes on citizens affected by ERTE during the Covid period should be limited to the amount that exceeds the interprofessional minimum wage. The rulings reject objections from both the Cantabrian Government and the General Treasury of the Social Security to this limit set by the High Court of Justice of Cantabria. These decisions, reported by El Periódico de España, part of the Prensa Ibérica group, specify that such compensation does not carry the full protective privilege against seizures. The safeguard of maintaining the economic minimum is still essential to ensure that workers have enough funds to meet basic needs for themselves and their families, as established in Article 607 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Two cases, heard on December 5 and December 12, involve workers who owe sums of 1,682.65 euros and 21,587.63 euros respectively to Cantabria’s regional treasury. The Government of Cantabria initiated these forfeiture actions against separate claims brought by the Social Security Treasury. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the high court determined that it should be the subject of appeal whether the subsidies in question are inherently non-seizable privileges. If not, the court would address the limit of the interprofessional minimum wage in relation to assistance for individuals affected by temporary employment regulation measures approved within the Covid-19 framework. (Source: El Periódico de España)
Aid or Economic Return?
The question remains whether financial aid granted to self-employed workers, solely because they were affected by ERTE, enjoys the special protection provided by Article 607 of the LEC. That is, whether the aid constitutes personal assistance or a business asset, or whether it should be considered part of the economic benefit derived from autonomous professional or commercial activity. The Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Cantabria found that the public benefits provided under Cantabrian law for workers affected by the Covid-19 crisis are liable to seizure because of their nature and purpose, and do not enjoy absolute protection against expropriation. (Attribution: Cantabrian High Court)
This stance counters the view that full protection might extend to all public subsidies. Extending protection too broadly would distort the meaning of the non-appropriation privilege for public property and private rights, the court argued. The Supreme Court alternatively suggested that extending coverage to every form of public aid would distort legal protections and undermine the intended scope of the privilege. (Citation: Supreme Court of Cantabria)
In essence, the court indicated that the subsidies granted by the Cantabrian government to mitigate the economic impact of the crisis on workers enrolled in ERTE and on self-employed individuals did not automatically receive the highest level of shield against foreclosure. The aim of these subsidies was to soften the economic blow from the state of alarm, not to provide a blanket exemption from all debt collection measures. Consequently, the general Treasury of Social Security was empowered to pursue collection actions under the existing rules, while still observing the limits tied to the minimum wage threshold. (Source note: El Periódico de España)
As the legal debate unfolds, authorities in Canada and the United States may watch closely how this interpretation aligns with their own protections for public subsidies and welfare programs. The central takeaway is that emergency relief designed to alleviate crisis-era hardship does not automatically carry the strongest form of non-seizability protection. Instead, such aid must be weighed against the fundamental requirement to preserve a worker’s minimum living standards while allowing legitimate debt collection to proceed under statutory limits. (Observation for practitioners: from El Periódico de España)