A hostel owner started receiving active retirement benefits in April 2018 and continued managing the restaurant until the Labor Inspection examined the business organization and concluded that the hiring used to receive 100% of the pension did not meet the conditions required for that modality. The case ended with the loss of coverage for six months, starting from May 1003, 2018, and the repayment of the improperly collected amount of 60,082.11 euros, which the affected person returned before appealing the administrative decision in court. The controversy revolved around who really employed the restaurant staff, as the retiree claimed to have been hiring workers for years and continued assuming tasks and expenses of the place, while a large part of the personnel were listed in a company of which he was the sole partner and administrator. An inspection was initiated by the high court of his daughter. The performance began on April 6, 2022 due to the failure to register a daughter of the retiree in the Social Security system, despite her working evenings as a bartender and being fully contracted by another company dedicated to the management of rentals and tourist homes owned by the father. During the visit, the retiree was in charge of the activity and there were three other workers at the establishment, only one of whom was registered under his name, while the others had transferred to the company managing the business around the time of the pension request, and he remained the holder of the lease contract for the premises. The National Social Security Institute confirmed in November 2022 the inspector’s proposal to deny the pension for six months and require the repayment of the wrong amounts, a decision that was maintained after the previous appeal and was also approved by the Social Court number 5 of Castellón in February 2024. Why was the appeal rejected. In Sentence number 1571/2025, of May 28th of that same year, the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community dismisses the retiree’s appeal and confirms the court’s judgment, after establishing that the proven facts were not challenged and completing their account with the inspector’s act and the administrative resolutions incorporated into the procedure. The dispute focused on the applicable rule when the active retirement was recognized: to receive 100% while working as a self-employed person, one had to prove the hiring of at least one employee on behalf of a third party, a requirement that, according to the Supreme Court doctrine cited by the Court, had to be met by the self-employed person as a natural person because the employees of a company are workers of said company and not of its partner or administrator. According to the court, the restaurant was managed through a company and the affected person had «reactivated» as an entrepreneur when retiring to meet the requirement that allowed them to receive the full pension, a conduct considered fraudulent and for which the sanction is maintained, understanding that they were entitled to 50% of the benefit compatible with work. The resolution does not impose costs on the appellant, as they have recognized the right to free legal assistance, and indicates that a cassation appeal could be prepared for the unification of doctrine within ten business days following its notification, without the consulted document proving if it was presented or if the sentence became firm.
A hostel owner started receiving active retirement benefits in April 2018 and continued managing the restaurant until the Labor Inspection examined the business organization and concluded that the hiring used to receive 100% of the pension did not meet the conditions required for that modality. The case ended with the loss of coverage for six months, starting from May 1003, 2018, and the repayment of the improperly collected amount of 60,082.11 euros, which the affected person returned before appealing the administrative decision in court. The controversy revolved around who really employed the restaurant staff, as the retiree claimed to have been hiring workers for years and continued assuming tasks and expenses of the place, while a large part of the personnel were listed in a company of which he was the sole partner and administrator. An inspection was initiated by the high court of his daughter. The performance began on April 6, 2022 due to the failure to register a daughter of the retiree in the Social Security system, despite her working evenings as a bartender and being fully contracted by another company dedicated to the management of rentals and tourist homes owned by the father. During the visit, the retiree was in charge of the activity and there were three other workers at the establishment, only one of whom was registered under his name, while the others had transferred to the company managing the business around the time of the pension request, and he remained the holder of the lease contract for the premises. The National Social Security Institute confirmed in November 2022 the inspector’s proposal to deny the pension for six months and require the repayment of the wrong amounts, a decision that was maintained after the previous appeal and was also approved by the Social Court number 5 of Castellón in February 2024. Why was the appeal rejected. In Sentence number 1571/2025, of May 28th of that same year, the Superior Court of Justice of the Valencian Community dismisses the retiree’s appeal and confirms the court’s judgment, after establishing that the proven facts were not challenged and completing their account with the inspector’s act and the administrative resolutions incorporated into the procedure. The dispute focused on the applicable rule when the active retirement was recognized: to receive 100% while working as a self-employed person, one had to prove the hiring of at least one employee on behalf of a third party, a requirement that, according to the Supreme Court doctrine cited by the Court, had to be met by the self-employed person as a natural person because the employees of a company are workers of said company and not of its partner or administrator. According to the court, the restaurant was managed through a company and the affected person had «reactivated» as an entrepreneur when retiring to meet the requirement that allowed them to receive the full pension, a conduct considered fraudulent and for which the sanction is maintained, understanding that they were entitled to 50% of the benefit compatible with work. The resolution does not impose costs on the appellant, as they have recognized the right to free legal assistance, and indicates that a cassation appeal could be prepared for the unification of doctrine within ten business days following its notification, without the consulted document proving if it was presented or if the sentence became firm.
