The citizen should not pay for the errors of the Administration. This is the doctrine that applies a court of the social (enter here to the text of the sentence) to reject the request of the Public State Employment Service (SPEE) that claimed a retired person for the return of the amounts that the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) had recognized by mistake. The woman mistakenly received more than 20,000 euros in concept of unemployment benefit for over 52 years In spite of not having enough time of quotation that now the justice allows him to stay.
The lThe INSS recognized that in its day, by mistake, it was certified that the worker credited the "generic and specific lack" to access the retirement benefit. Error that was detected when reviewing the file of the worker.
The Social Court No. 26 of Barcelona applies in this case the doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights in the resolution of a case "surprisingly similar" to the one proposed. In this case, the return of the benefit that a Croatian citizen received was improperly claimed because the corresponding administration extended it indefinitely by mistake. In its ruling, the European Court of Human Rights states that although the administrative decision may be revoked, if the beneficiary did not contribute to the erroneous decision, it "has the right to invoke its validity". In other words, the expectation of the citizen to continue enjoying a pension was legitimate and protected by the Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights.
For the European Court of Human Rights, when dealing with errors attributable exclusively to officials or authorities, they should not be corrected solely at the expense of the interested party. It is not provided, he points out, that the reimbursement of the totality of the benefits unduly received is intended, without any responsibility of the Administration that erred. It also emphasizes that the modest benefit on which it was discussed was intended to cover the basic subsistence needs of the beneficiary.
The court takes this judgment into account and applies its doctrine because the case it studies is identical, in the sense that in both cases the beneficiary did not contribute to the Administration's error, and her good faith was not questioned. Also, stresses, the worker could hardly assume the debt that is claimed for an error in the computation of time quoted that is not attributable to her. The return of the total amount, more than 20,000 euros, is required when the woman lacks economic rewards. Otherwise, the subsidy would not have been recognized. It is also unemployed, in the age close to the ordinary retirement, and unable to access a retirement benefit for lack of contribution.
For all this, and for reasons of fairness and good faith, the court rejected the claim, even though the error was not directly attributable to the Public Employment Service. In front of the worker both entities, as manager of Social Security benefits, are the Administration.