The High Court of Justice of Murcia has ruled that a woman is entitled to receive a widow’s pension, overturning an initial rejection by the Social Security system based on a purely administrative issue tied to her husband’s employment status at the time of his death.
The case dates back to March 4, 2020, when the husband of Amparo passed away. The worker had been on voluntary leave since December 12, 2019, a planned three-month period after which he intended to return to his job. However, at the time of his death, he was not registered with Social Security nor listed as a job seeker.
Based on these facts, the National Institute of Social Security denied the widow’s pension claim, arguing that a key requirement—being registered or in an equivalent situation—was not met. Additionally, they claimed the minimum contribution period was insufficient, as the worker had accumulated around 13.5 years of contributions, short of the 15 years required in his case.
After the rejection, Amparo took the case to court. The Social Court No. 1 of Murcia upheld the administration’s decision, forcing the widow to appeal to the High Court of Justice.
In the second instance, the Murcia High Court reversed the lower court’s ruling and granted her appeal. The court determined that the deceased’s situation should not be interpreted as a permanent withdrawal from the Social Security system, but rather as a temporary break in his work activity.
A crucial factor in the ruling is the timing: the worker was just eight days away from ending his leave and returning to his job. The court considered this evidence of a clear intention to re-enter the workforce.
The tribunal also invoked the so-called “humanizing interpretation” of Social Security regulations, a doctrine established by the Supreme Court that allows flexibility in the registration requirement when circumstances justify it. According to this legal principle, the worker’s real-life connection to the system cannot be ignored.
In its decision, the court emphasized that there was no intent to permanently sever ties with employment, and that a strict application of the law would have led to an unjustified lack of protection.
