He Supreme Court has granted a widow’s pension to a victim of gender violence who had been denied the benefit by both Social Security and a court in Barcelona and the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia (TSJC). The magistrates of the Social Chamber correct the previous resolutions by understanding, among other factors, that the requirement established by law that, in order to obtain a widow’s pension, the victim of sexist violence must prove that she was “in the “time” of judicial separation or divorce must be interpreted “flexibly.” The important thing, affirms the Supreme Court, is that a “reasonable temporal connection” can be established between gender violence and marital breakdown. In the case you have examined, the last conviction against the aggressor was handed down in 2011, six years before the divorce ruling (in 2017).
The resolution of the Social Chamber aims to unify doctrine on how the requirements demanded by the General Social Security Law (LGSS) must be applied so that victims of gender violence obtain a widow’s pension. Social Security and the judges of Barcelona refused to grant the benefit to the woman because more than 10 years had passed between the separation (2000) and the death of the man (2018), but they overlooked that the rule establishes special conditions for victims of sexist violence. Article 220 of the law recognizes the right to a widow’s pension to women who “could prove that they were victims of gender violence at the time of judicial separation or divorce through a final ruling.” The Supreme Court warns that this precept is independent of the general requirements contemplated by the law, so if the woman meets this criterion it is not necessary for her to meet the others.
In the case they have examined, the judges consider that the woman complied, from the beginning, with the first assumption, which requires granting the benefit to the woman who proves that she suffered gender violence at the time of separation. In this case, the separation sentence is from the year 2000 and the woman had denounced her then husband in 1998, 1999 and 2000, the year in which the aggressor was finally convicted. But in addition, the magistrates of the high court consider that the second assumption was also met, the one that contemplates the pension for women who can prove that they were victims of sexist violence at the time of the divorce, since the abuse continued after the separation: woman reported her ex-partner on September 2, 2004, which led to a restraining order and a conviction five days later. Furthermore, on March 30, 2005, the man was again convicted of mistreatment and threats; and, finally, a court handed down a new sentence against him on February 23, 2011.
To recognize the pension also in this way, the Supreme Court relies on the high court’s own jurisprudence, which in a 2021 ruling established that “flexible criteria” and “open concepts that allow better attention to situations of need” had to be applied. (article 41 of the Constitution), at least in certain cases.” Under this premise, the Social Court understands that “there was a reasonable temporal connection” between the proven gender violence and the moment of the divorce, even though six years passed between the last sentence and the sentence that ended the marriage.
