equal treatment
Parents of two or more children who face obstacles when claiming a permanent disability pension supplement have the right to receive extra compensation. A recent ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union, issued this Thursday, addressed a case from Spain and set out that it is an administrative practice to systematically deny this additional benefit. The court noted that this ignores the implications of a decision rendered in 2019 and found that granting a privilege solely to mothers constitutes discrimination, exposing fathers to double discrimination.
In the 2019 ruling, the European Court had already established that in Spain the pension supplements were granted only to mothers with two or more children who were entitled to a permanent disability pension, excluding fathers in similar circumstances. This was described as sex-based discrimination and contrary to the equal treatment directive. Following that decision, in November 2020 a father of two sought recognition of the supplement for the absolute permanent disability he had been receiving since November 2018 from Spanish Social Security, but his claim was denied. He pursued the matter through the courts, and while a initial court decision recognized the right to the supplement, it simultaneously refused compensation for the discrimination faced. Both the father and the Spanish authorities appealed that ruling, and the Supreme Court of Justice of Galicia referred a preliminary question to the European Court to clarify potential discrimination and compensation possibilities.
The Thursday decision reinforces that national courts and administrative authorities must not apply discriminatory national practices once discrimination under European law is established, and they should act to restore equal treatment without waiting for legislative repeal. The same regime must be applied to men as is applied to women in similar situations, ensuring parity in access to the supplement.
The Court also concluded that the administrative practice of systematically denying the supplement created a new form of discrimination by forcing men to go to court to obtain the right, thereby prolonging proceedings and, when relevant, increasing legal costs. The court stated that a national court examining a challenge to a rejection decision cannot simply grant retroactive recognition of the supplement to the male claimant. It should ensure a remedy that addresses the harm caused by the discrimination, not just the entitlement itself. According to the ruling, the man must receive adequate financial compensation to fully offset the harm experienced, including costs and legal fees incurred in pursuing the claim. This approach seeks to remedy the broader impact of discrimination on the individual case. The decision highlights the obligation to provide effective redress for discrimination and to remove barriers that uniquely penalize one gender in access to social protections.