The Superior Court of Justice of Navarra condemns the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) to recognize the lifetime widow's pension in favor of a woman for the death of her husband, with whom she married only four months before dying and with whom he had barely lived. The court relaxes the coexistence requirement since it considers that there was a stable relationship, and that until now they lived separately only for work reasons
Both began a romantic relationship in 2011 but did not marry until January 2018. The man died in April 2018 as a result of a disease diagnosed before marriage.
Coexistence
From the beginning of the sentimental relationship, both of them lived together with weekly fines, vacation periods or non-work periods, but they were never registered at the same address. They would go on trips together and partake in family celebrations as a couple. Between weeks, and for work reasons, the plaintiff resides in Pamplona and speaks initially in Tudela and later in Etxarri Aranatz.
Whenever the cause of death was transferred to live in the home of the patient and after the diagnosis of the confinement that caused the death, both moved to another home to be closer to the hospital area.
The National Institute of Social Security (INSS) appealed the judgment of instance that agrees with the applicant, taking into account that the coexistence between the two was not accredited based on article 219.2 of the LGSS, which establishes that "in the cases exceptional in which the death of the deceased derived from a common disease, not occurring after the conjugal bond, it is also highlighted that the marriage had been celebrated at least one year before the date of death (...)”, if then, continued the precept «This duration of the marriage bond will not be required when on the date of celebration of the same a period of cohabitation with the deceased is accredited, in the terms established in article 221.2, which, added to the duration of the marriage, would have exceeded the two years”.
Social reality
Despite the literal tenor of the regulations, the Court will recall that the interpretation of the regulations must be adapted to social reality, as established in article 3 of the Civil Code, based on this, it must be taken into account when applying the specific regulations that it is not uncommon for the members of a stable couple to provide their labor services in different locations, and it is also not uncommon for them to reside in different locations, which cannot be an impediment to affirming that there is a true relationship between them. stable and notorious relationship of coexistence.
The sober sentence insists, it is a point and a sign that the evolution of the new forms of work organization and its adequate distribution in the family home, is imposing demands for territorial mobility that force workers to continuously adjust in the place of work, with an incident in the area of personal coexistence because a change of family address is not always possible or convenient, for example, in cases of temporary change of workplace. Therefore, the magistrates understand that the interpretive rigidity alleged by the INSS would go against the purpose of the rule.
Flexible coexistence
In response to this reality, the TSJ confirmed the lower court ruling that makes the requirement of stable coexistence and notoriety more flexible, and considers it fulfilled by those who only cohabited the weekly fines, vacations and other non-working periods, for strict reasons related to their respective Jobs, but whose relationship was stable, public and notorious since 2011 and condemns the National Institute of Social Security to recognize the demand for a life pension for widowhood.
