The Supreme Court clarified a doctrine around maternity supplements and demographic contributions, explaining how benefits should be allocated when both parents meet the legal criteria.
The court held that the entitlement to a maternity supplement based on demographic contribution can be granted to either parent who meets the specified conditions, without considering whether the other parent also holds a right to receive the benefit. This interpretation means that the supplement should be applied in a way that honors the letter of the law, even as it navigates how the benefit is distributed between two eligible parties. The period from January 1, 2016, to February 3, 2021, is particularly noted because during that time the law expressly restricted concurrent eligibility under a specific royal decree intended to reduce gender disparities in pensions.
In pursuit of equality
The General Assembly of the Social Department argues that recognizing one parent’s right to a maternity supplement for demographic contribution does not bar the other parent from receiving it if they also meet the legal requirements. This view is aligned with the stance of the European Union Court of Justice, which has described any approach that discriminates between parents as unacceptable. Within this framework, the Court’s decision emphasizes equal access to the supplement when both parents qualify under the rules, rather than restricting the benefit to a single recipient on the basis of gender or circumstance. .
It is noted that the Supreme Court’s decision concerns only pensions within the 2016–2021 window because a later royal decree now governs how the supplement aims to close the gender gap in pensions and restricts concurrent benefits by both parents. This shift reflects ongoing policy adjustments designed to ensure fairness while implementing the new regulatory framework. .
Against a narrow view of equality
Some arguments suggest limiting the benefit to one parent without a clear criterion for choosing who receives it. Critics say such a rule could ignore tax considerations and operate without proper regulatory authorization, undermining the egalitarian intent behind the law. They argue that a norm should not rely on exceptions that simply restore past imbalances and should instead consistently support both caregivers when the legal conditions are met. .
The Court of Cassation has pointed out that the prior regulation, Article 60 of the General Social Security Law, did not address what happens if the other parent has already benefited from the supplement. If lawmakers intended to eliminate such double eligibility, they would have stated it clearly. If a rule does not impose additional conditions for protection matters, a translator cannot add them by assumption. This critique underscores the importance of explicit legislative language when addressing cases where multiple parties may qualify. .
Recognizing rights beyond gender
The court stresses that eligibility for the supplement should be recognized regardless of the recipient’s gender. Denying a benefit designed to counter the negative effects of a caregiver’s circumstances would be illogical and contrary to the aim of supporting families. The emphasis is on safeguarding a born right that relates to the caregiver’s situation, rather than to the biological role of a parent. Consequently, situations where a parent other than the primary caregiver receives the benefit are not inherently invalid. .
Additionally, the Court highlights that the EU Court of Justice found that earlier rules governing the demographic contribution supplement discriminated against men. The new framework seeks to move beyond that discriminatory legacy while avoiding a collapse of established rights. The doctrine now under formulation strives to align with case law on ending discriminatory scenarios, with the aim of extending the benefit to those who qualify rather than abolishing the right altogether. .
Ultimately, the Court of Cassation rejected the bid to unify the doctrine urged by the National Institute of Social Security against the Galician Supreme Court of Justice. The Galician court had recognized the father’s right to receive the maternity supplement for demographic contribution even when the mother was already receiving it. Social Security argued that the demographic contribution is a unique attachment to birth and that only one parent can be recognized. The ruling underscores the need to harmonize national practice with the evolving understanding of equality and eligibility, while acknowledging the diverse circumstances families may face. .