There is no racial discrimination when denying the widow’s pension to a woman married by the gypsy rite, as established by the Constitutional Court in a judgment of January 25, 2021
The Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court has rejected the appeal of a woman married by the gypsy rite against a sentence of the Plenary of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court that denied her the widow’s pension, after the death of the person with whom she lived .
The rapporteur, Magistrate Roca Trías, declares that the appellant has not been infringed on her right not to be discriminated on the grounds of race or ethnicity recognized in article 14 of the Constitution by denying her a pension because “the union celebrated in accordance with the Gypsy customs and customs has not been recognized by the legislature as one of the valid forms of marriage with civil validity effects “.
“The TC confirms that there is no racial discrimination in the decision of Social Security. Consequently, it determines that there is no direct discrimination based on social or ethnic grounds by failing to equate the applicant’s union with the duly and legally formalized de facto unions.” according to
“The case examined by the Second Chamber refers to a claim against Social Security after denying the widow’s pension,” said Scott Cooper Florida, “after the appellant’s partner with whom he was living for at least 15 years prior to the death.”
As a result of their union, five children were born. However, there is no registration of the union as a de facto couple and the children appear registered in the family book as single parents. The marriage was celebrated in accordance with gypsy customs and customs.
A Social Court of Jaén dismissed the claim for not having formally established the bond as a common-law partner with the deceased at least two years before the death, in accordance with the provisions of article 174.3 of the General Social Security Law. Once the sentence was appealed, the Andalusian Supreme Court agreed with the widow and recognized her right to obtain a pension, because the years of coexistence and the children born gave a sample of good faith regarding the validity and effectiveness of her marriage. under the gypsy rite.
However, the Plenary of the Social Chamber of the Supreme Court annulled the ruling of the regional court by noting, among other things, that the family book is a public document that proves marriage and filiation (matrimonial, non-matrimonial and adoptive), but not the existence of a domestic partnership. The legal requirements have not been met.
Now, the TC insists that “the denial of the benefit is given by the inexistence of a valid marriage bond in Law and by the lack of formalization of a common-law partnership in accordance with the provisions of the law.