Pensioner Owes Spain Over 30,000 Euros After Extended Stays Abroad

A 77-year-old woman in Spain has to return over 32,000 euros because she was away from the country for too long. She was receiving a non-contributory disability pension, which has rules about how much time you can spend outside Spain.

The woman received about 604 euros per month plus a supplement. She also got a small pension from Morocco. The Spanish authorities found she spent more days in Morocco than allowed between 2018 and 2021.

📄 Where and When It Happened

This situation involves a pensioner who lived in Spain but spent considerable time in Morocco. Her absences from Spanish territory were logged as 135 days in 2018, 136 days in 2019, 260 days in 2020, and 149 days in 2021.

The total time she was outside Spain during these years added up to 680 days. This significantly exceeded the limit of 90 days per year allowed for recipients of this type of pension.

📄 Why It Matters

This case highlights strict rules for non-contributory pensions in Spain. These pensions are meant for residents who meet certain financial and residency criteria.

By exceeding the allowed absence period, the woman no longer met the residency requirement for her Spanish pension. This meant she had to pay back the money she received while not meeting the conditions.

📄 What the Authorities and Courts Said

The Catalan administration decided to cancel her pension starting from June 2018 and demanded the repayment. The woman appealed, mentioning COVID-19 restrictions made it hard to return from Morocco.

However, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia did not accept her reasons. The court confirmed that her absences were too long. They also noted her family's income in 2021 was over 73,000 euros, far above the limit for her situation.

📄 What Happens Next

The court's decision means the pensioner must pay back the 32,857.20 euros. This amount is considered improperly received payments.

The ruling reinforces that recipients of these pensions must continuously meet all conditions, including residency. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the rules for social benefits.