13,927 contribution days and early retirement: the key of the TSJ

Early retirement must be calculated using the ordinary age in effect when the application is submitted. This is confirmed by a ruling from the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid in a case involving 13,927 days of contributions between Spain and Germany.

A worker saw her request rejected by the INSS, first due to a dispute over age and later because the agency considered the cessation voluntary. The ruling upholds the right recognized in the first instance and offers two keys for workers close to early retirement: the business origin of the departure and the exact timing of the application.

What has the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid decided?

The early pension is confirmed

For workers who left the company under a social plan, the decision has a direct consequence: the compensation received does not automatically make the cessation voluntary. The Social Chamber dismissed the two appeals submitted and upheld the pension recognized by the court.

The ruling is Judgment number 717/2025, issued on October 23, 2025, by the Sixth Section of the Social Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid. The litigation began after the INSS rejected the early retirement application.

The application was submitted on August 24, 2022. At that time, the worker credited 13,927 days of contributions: 6,134 corresponding to Spain and 7,793 to Germany, a total equivalent to 38 years and 54 days.

Why is the cessation considered involuntary?

The conflict arose from a termination agreement signed on March 15, 2018, effective August 31 of the same year. The document indicated that the employment relationship ended at the company's initiative for operational reasons and that the departure was linked to a social plan preceded by a consultation period.

The company had planned compensation of 690,624.63 euros, an amount exceeding the legal severance. The INSS argued that both signing the agreement and the amount paid prevented considering the cessation involuntary.

The court did not accept this interpretation. The Chamber understood that the agency relied on facts not proven, such as whether the worker could have continued at another center or in Germany. According to the confirmed ruling, the social plan did not contain measures left to the free choice of the workers.

This point is especially relevant for those receiving a high compensation and fearing that the amount may harm the recognition of early retirement. The ruling differentiates between receiving an amount agreed upon within a business decision and voluntarily leaving the job. They are not the same.

What age must be applied to calculate access?

The date of the application determines the calculation

For those applying for early retirement, the submission date is not a minor administrative detail: it determines the age schedule to be taken as a reference. In this case, the court applied the rules in effect in 2022, when the request was filed.

The INSS argued that the ordinary age in effect in 2027 should be used, the year the worker would reach ordinary retirement age. The Chamber rejected this option because it would have applied future conditions prematurely to an application submitted in 2022.

Since the worker was below the 38 years and three months of contributions required for the corresponding bracket, the court set the ordinary reference age at 66 years and two months. With a maximum reduction of four years, access to early retirement was set at 62 years and two months.

Which rule prevents directly applying the future age?

The Chamber bases its decision on the seventh transitional provision of the law, which establishes a gradual increase in the ordinary age. Its reading is clear: each application must be examined according to the schedule corresponding to the moment of submission.

Applying from 2022 the conditions scheduled for 2027 would have rendered this gradual schedule ineffective. The ruling considers that this option would have distorted and emptied of content the transitional regulation.

The issue has a very specific practical interpretation. A person may reach ordinary retirement age in a later year, but that does not mean their application calculation must be done with the rules of that future year. The court looks at the moment of application, not only the year in which the age is reached.

The examined modality also required that the cause of cessation be one of those legally foreseen. In this case, the Chamber deemed proven that the departure responded to a business decision linked to the social plan. *This is the piece that supports the entire reasoning.*

What requirements and steps are established?

What must be proven in a similar case?

The ruling shows that demonstrating a long contribution record is not enough. The applicant must be able to link the cessation to a business decision and situate the age calculation at the correct date.

• Submit the early retirement application with the corresponding date.
• Provide evidence of contribution periods, including those worked in other countries if recorded in the file.
• Justify that the cessation results from a business decision linked to the social plan.
• Confirm that the cause of departure falls among those foreseen for involuntary early retirement.
• Apply the ordinary age provided in the schedule in effect when the application was submitted.

In the analyzed case, the court had established a regulatory base of 1,478.80 euros, with 70% and 44.52% corresponding to the period worked in Spain. The TSJ ruling upholds the pension as fixed in the first instance.

What procedural steps remain after the Judgment?

The Chamber rejected the two appeals and did not impose costs. It also rejected a report on the German pension insurance because it could have been submitted during the trial.

1. Review the first instance ruling and the contribution data recorded therein.
2. Verify that the business cessation and social plan appear accredited in the file.
3. Confirm that the applied age corresponds to the schedule in effect on the application date.
4. Submit reports and documents to be used during the trial.
5. If the ruling is to be challenged, prepare a cassation appeal for the unification of doctrine within the established deadline.

Against this ruling, only a cassation appeal for the unification of doctrine can be prepared within ten days following notification. The source does not specify any other deadline for a new application nor any later review of the pension.

• Termination agreement of the employment relationship.
• Documentation of the social plan and consultation period.
• Receipts of the compensation paid.
• Certificates of contribution periods in Spain and Germany.
• Documents related to pensions from other countries to be incorporated into the procedure.

A frequent error would be confusing a high compensation with voluntary cessation. Another is applying the future ordinary age without checking the exact application date. And there is a third: reserving documents for a later phase when they could have been submitted during the trial.

The ruling of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid leaves three operative ideas: the **social plan** can prove the business origin of the departure, the **application date** sets the applicable schedule, and the **documentation** must be submitted at the appropriate procedural moment. The ten-day deadline starts counting from notification; those who do not comply may lose the option to prepare the planned appeal. Therefore, reviewing the dates, contribution periods, and cause of cessation can be decisive before submitting any request.