The Supreme Court clarifies that pandemic ERTE assist might be seized with the identical restrict as salaries | Economy | EUROtoday

The Supreme Court (TS) has clarified that public assist acquired by employees and corporations topic to short-term employment regulation recordsdata (ERTE) in the course of the coronavirus pandemic might be seized to settle money owed, though it has set the identical restrict as with salaries. to ensure a “vital minimum” that enables them to guide a “dignified existence.”

The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the TS has dominated on the instances of two employees subjected to ERTE who acquired public assist from the Government of Cantabria because of the disaster unleashed by COVID-19 and to whom Social Security seized stated assist to settle the claims. money owed that they’d contracted with their Treasury.

In each instances, which had been processed in numerous procedures, the Cantabrian Government appealed, alleging that “any monetary contribution or subsidy must be considered as a property right materially assigned to a public function and, as such, enjoys the privilege of non-seizureability.” To this he added that these cash injections had been meant to “alleviate the drop in income due to the coronavirus crisis.”

Social Security, for its half, defended that it was assist granted to employees and corporations “due to the exclusive fact of being affected by the cessation of their activity caused by the state of alarm”, so, as soon as acquired, they’re “property income”, that’s, “income to be taxed” and, subsequently, seizable. Initially, the contentious-administrative courts of Santander dominated in favor of Social Security, so the regional Executive appealed to the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Cantabria, which in two rulings dominated that this assist is prone to seizure. however with the identical restrict as salaries, thus partially upholding the allegations of the Cantabrian Government.

Economic compensation

Not happy, each the autonomous group and Social Security went to the Supreme Court, which has totally confirmed the sentences handed down by the Cantabrian TSJ in two rulings by judges José María del Riego and María Isabel Perelló.

The Third Chamber maintains that these aids might be seized as a result of “they do not fall under the conceptual assumption of ‘property and property rights that are materially affected by a public service or a public function'”, however moderately it’s “‘economic compensation’. for the loss or reduction of income, due to inactivity derived from the declaration of the state of alarm, which is incorporated into the beneficiary’s assets.”

Thus, it establishes that not all public assist, “regardless of its object, nature and purpose”, deserves “the special protection of unseizable without limits, to the extent that this legal conclusion would mean distorting the scope and meaning of the prerogative of non-seizable which corresponds to public assets and property rights, unduly expanding the scope of application to all subsidies.”

“The privilege of non-seizure is limited exclusively to property and property rights when they are materially affected by a public service or a public function,” it states.

Proportionality in sacrifices

Next, the TS analyzes whether or not the aforementioned assist might be completely or partially seized to conclude that “the limit on the seizure of ‘wages, salary, pension, remuneration or its equivalent’ is fully applicable.” For the Supreme Court, “it is extravagant and contradictory with the object and purpose of the subsidies granted by the Government of Cantabria, to alleviate the economic consequences for workers immersed in ERTE” because of the pandemic, who “could not have an economic threshold.” minimal to attempt to survive this socio-economic emergency scenario with dignity.”

In line, he recollects that “the principle of the non-attachment of the salary, (…) is based on the need to preserve a vital economic minimum that guarantees the worker a sufficient amount to meet his needs and those of his family.” For this purpose, it states that “the effectiveness of property rights cannot be taken to the extreme of sacrificing the debtor’s minimum living standards, depriving him of the essential means for the realization of his personal goals, as well as the protection of the family, the maintenance of health and the use of decent and adequate housing.”

The Supreme Court emphasizes that these values ​​“oblige the public powers not only to deploy the corresponding administrative action on benefits, but also to develop the regulatory action that is necessary to ensure compliance with these constitutional mandates.”

Consequently, it considers “reasonable and consistent to create an intangible patrimonial sphere for the executive action of creditors that helps the debtor maintain the possibility of a dignified existence, which entails the requirement of respecting the principle of proportionality of the sacrifices that are required of debtors and creditors.”

Follow all the information Economy y Business in Facebook y Xor in our newsletter semanal