Information;Order — ECLI:EU:C:2025:970
Date: 2025-12-08
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Spain

Translation C-403/25 – 1 
Case C-403/25 [Vedrón] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
17 June 2025 
Referring court: 
Juzgado de lo Social n.º 2 de Elche (Spain) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
8 May 2025 
Applicant: 
J.L.Q. 
Defendants: 
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS) 
Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) 
  
[…] 
REFERENCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
(Article 267 TFEU) 
Judge: […] 
In Elche/Elx, 8 May 2025 
I. BACKGROUND 
1. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPLICANT 
The applicant, Mr J.L.Q., was born on 1 November 1954, and is a father of three 
children born in 1979, 1983 and 1988. 
 
i The name of this case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 5. 2025 – CASE C-403/25 
 
2 
He began working as an employee and was registered with social security on 
1 September 1969, at the age of 15 years and 2 months. 
He took voluntary early retirement on 2 February 2018, at the age of 63 years and 
3 months, when he had a total of 46 years and 150 days of contributions to the 
Spanish social security system. 
He was therefore granted a retirement pension by the Instituto Nacional de la 
Seguridad Social (Spanish National Social Security Institute; ‘the INSS’) with a 
basic amount of EUR 1 599.58 and a percentage of 88.625%, as it was reduced by 
1.625% per quarter not worked before he turned 65 (in total only just amounting 
to seven quarters), which was on 1 November 2019. 
2. APPLICATION FOR THE DEMOGRAPHIC CONTRIBUTION 
SUPPLEMENT 
On 26 May 2022, the applicant filed an application for a maternity supplement 
under Article 60 of the Ley General de la Seguridad Social (General Law on 
Social Security; ‘the LGSS’) (the version that was in force between 2016 and 
2021), which was dismissed by the INSS on the basis that: 
– his application was time-barred since more than five years had passed since he 
was granted his retirement pension (subsequently this ground was not upheld); 
– he did not meet the requirements laid down in Article 60 of the consolidated 
version of the LGSS, Real Decreto Legislativo 8/2015 (Royal Legislative 
Decree 8/2015) – paragraph 4 of Article 60 stated that ‘the pension supplement 
shall not be applicable where the person concerned voluntarily takes early 
retirement or takes partial retirement, referred to in Articles 208 and 215 
respectively’. 
After a complaint was lodged, a new decision was made on 16 March 2023 
dismissing it, which reiterated the same grounds: that he did not meet the 
requirements laid down in Articles 53 (limitation period) and 60 (early retirement) 
of the LGSS. 
3. CLAIM AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS 
A claim was brought objecting to the decision denying the pension supplement 
and a hearing was held in which the INSS opposed the claim, arguing essentially 
that the applicant took early retirement at 63 years and 3 months and, 
consequently, he did not meet the requirement laid down in Article 60 of the 
LGSS, which excluded cases ‘where the person concerned voluntary takes early 
retirement’. 
VEDRÓN 
 
3 
The applicant maintained his claim as he believed that dismissing his application 
amounted to a failure to observe the principle of equality and non-discrimination, 
as a formal criterion (type of retirement) was being applied that was not 
proportionate to the purpose of the supplement. 
II. LAW 
1. PURPOSE OF THE SUPPLEMENT 
The aim of the demographic contribution supplement is to reward the contribution 
to the system through maternity or paternity, in accordance with the aims of 
Article 60 of the LGSS and policies to ensure equality and sustainability of the 
system. Article 60(1) states that ‘women who have had biological or adopted 
children and are recipients of a contributory retirement, widow’s or permanent 
incapacity pension under any scheme within the social security system shall be 
granted a pension supplement on account of their demographic contribution to 
social security’. 
Its final provision established that the supplement would apply, ‘where the 
circumstances established in that article are satisfied, to contributory pensions 
payable from 1 January 2016’. 
In a judgment of 12 December 2019, the Court of Justice declared that limiting 
that supplement to women amounted to direct discrimination on the grounds of 
sex and, therefore, that it would be prohibited by Directive 79/7. From that point 
onwards the supplement has been granted to men and women with effect from 
1 January 2016. 
2. NON-EXISTENCE OF REASONS FOR EXCLUSION 
Paragraph 4 of the aforementioned Article 60 of the version of the LGSS that was 
in force on the date of the application stated, as previously indicated, that ‘the 
pension supplement shall not be applicable where the person concerned 
voluntarily takes early retirement or takes partial retirement, referred to in 
Articles 208 and 215 respectively’. 
There is no objective or proportional basis for excluding those who take early 
retirement (regardless of whether they are men or women) when it concerns 
people who have been contributing over the course of a long career, such as the 
applicant, and this judge believes that that could be an infringement of Article 2 
and Article 6(1) TEU and Articles 20, 21 and 34 and Article 52(1) of the Charter 
of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, as will be referred to later. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 5. 2025 – CASE C-403/25 
 
4 
3. CASE-LAW OF THE TRIBUNAL CONSTITUCIONAL 
(CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, SPAIN) AND TRIBUNAL SUPREMO 
(SUPREME COURT, SPAIN) 
The present request for a preliminary ruling is justified by the current case-law of 
the Constitutional Court (Decision No 114/2018 of 16 October 2018, question of 
unconstitutionality 3307-2018) and of the Supreme Court (STS 662/2024), which 
validated the exclusion based on the fact that those who take early retirement 
‘decide to contribute less’. 
In its aforementioned judgment of 16 October 2018, which was prior to the 
judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 December 2019, the Constitutional Court 
declared that ‘from that point of view, it is not irrational or arbitrary to exclude 
mothers from the supplement in question who, by voluntarily taking early 
retirement, invoking the opportunity they have under Article 208 of the LGSS, opt 
to cut short their “insurance record”, in other words their contribution period’. 
When referring to that case-law, the Supreme Court also indicated that ‘there are 
no doubts regarding constitutional legality, as they were resolved in the decision 
of the Constitutional Court No 114/2018 of 20 November (rec 3307/2018)’, and 
stated the following: ‘Nor does [that case-law] infringe EU rules on discrimination 
between men and women guaranteed by Directive 79/7. The judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 12 May 2021 (Case C-130/20) had the opportunity to resolve a 
request for a preliminary ruling made in that regard, and declared that that 
directive “does not apply to national legislation which provides that women who 
have had at least two biological or adopted children are entitled to a pension 
maternity supplement in the event of retirement at the statutory age or early 
retirement on certain grounds laid down by law, but not if the person concerned 
voluntarily takes early retirement”, which also means that in that respect it backs 
up the decision of the national legislator to exclude voluntary early retirement 
from the pension supplement …’ 
However, and this is the specific issue raised by the present request for a 
preliminary ruling, at no point were cases considered in which the actual 
contribution period is much greater than that of ordinary retirees, nor was it 
considered whether that exclusion is in line with the principle of proportionality 
required by EU law. Therefore, it is not the possible infringement of Directive 
79/7, due to inequality between men and women, that is being raised again here, 
but rather whether the exclusion of voluntary early retirees is in line with other EU 
legislation. 
It should be pointed out that on the date the applicant retired, the legislation in 
force established the minimum contribution requirement for accessing a 
retirement pension based on 100% of the basic amount as being 38 years and 
6 months of contributions (Article 205 of the LGSS), which was far exceeded by 
the applicant, who, as previously indicated, had made more than 46 years of 
contributions, and was only 1 year and 3 months short of turning 65, due to the 
VEDRÓN 
 
5 
fact that, as already mentioned, he started working at the age of 15 years and 
3 months. Furthermore, when he started working in 1973, the minimum age 
established in Spain by the applicable legislation was 14 years, which increased to 
16 years in 1980 when the Ley del Estatuto de los Trabajadores (Law on the 
Workers’ Statute) was passed, which brought Spanish legislation in line with ILO 
Convention 138. Moreover, the average age of retirement in Spain when the 
applicant made his application in 2022 was 64.8 years, and those who had made 
more than 46 years of contributions throughout their lifetime were very much in 
the minority. 
In addition to this, the Article 205(1)(a) of the LGSS that was in force in 2018, 
when the applicant retired, established a minimum requirement of 15 years of 
contributions in order to retire, such that a worker who had made 15 years of 
contributions who retired in that year at 65 would have had the right to a 
retirement pension, irrespective of the reduction for early retirement, and would 
also have had the right to the maternity/demographic contribution supplement at 
the same percentage as the pension to be received. 
That is what led to one of the dissenting votes regarding the aforementioned 
judgment of the Constitutional Court, which stated that ‘in my view, the exclusion 
from the maternity supplement of mothers who take early retirement under 
Article 208 of the LGSS, pursuant to Article 60(4) of the same law, is 
unreasonable and disproportionate, and ultimately, discriminatory and contrary to 
Article 14 [of the Spanish Constitution]’. They went on to say that ‘that means 
that a woman who retired at 65 years old in 2018, with 15 years of contributions, 
will have the right to the pension supplement, but another who took voluntary 
early retirement in the same year and has 35 or more years of contributions, loses 
the right to the supplement, and will be considered in the same way as those who 
have not had children or only had one’. They then continued by stating as follows: 
‘Furthermore, in my opinion, the rule laid down in Article 60(4) of the LGSS is 
disproportionate because it results in a twofold penalty for women who request 
voluntary early retirement. Under Article 208 of the LGSS, the pension is reduced 
by applying a coefficient in respect of each quarter by which a worker falls short 
of the statutory retirement age, based on the number of contribution years 
(paragraph 2). In addition, they are deprived of the pension supplement, which, 
although it is of little importance in percentage terms in relation to the judgment 
with which I am disagreeing, in the current socio-economic circumstances, for 
many families it could mean valuable assistance that would enable them to live 
more comfortably.’ The other dissenting vote was also opposed to the view upheld 
by the majority that the principle of equality had been complied with. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 5. 2025 – CASE C-403/25 
 
6 
4. SUBSEQUENT CHANGE TO LEGISLATION 
Since the entry into force of Royal Decree-Law No 3/2021, 1 women who retire 
early have been able to access the new supplement, which means that the 
legislator has recognised that it was not reasonable to deny the demographic 
contribution supplement to those who met the requirements for retirement and 
applied for it early. That means that the legislator shares the reasoning provided in 
the dissenting vote issued for the aforementioned judgment of the Constitutional 
Court on 16 October 2018, which considered the measure to be unreasonable and 
disproportionate. 
That differentiation in the legislation in force could amount to an infringement of 
Articles 21 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and a failure to observe 
the principle of equality within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Directive 
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978, although that principle is being cited solely for 
the purpose of noting the reconsideration by the Spanish legislator of the previous 
exclusion, even though the present judgment does not raise any question regarding 
discrimination on grounds of sex, as the aforementioned Royal Decree-Law 
No [3]/2021 does not apply to the present case. This is without prejudice to the 
possibility that in the future, if this has not already been done, another judicial 
body may make a request for a preliminary ruling on that question. 
5. RULING AND NOTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES 
By a ruling of 1 April 2025 it was agreed to notify the parties so that they could 
put forward arguments regarding the relevance of making a request for a 
preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice. 
The Ministerio Fiscal (Public Prosecutor) made a written submission on 10 April 
2025 objecting to the request for a preliminary ruling, claiming, in essence: 
• first, and referring to the recommendation of the Court of Justice on 
9 October 2024, that it considers that the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
cannot ‘be the sole basis for the jurisdiction’ of the Court of Justice, and that 
that requires ‘separate EU legislation’, that applies ‘clearly and 
unequivocally’; 
• that the issue of the constitutionality of the provision has already been 
resolved by Constitutional Court judgment No 114/2018 of 18 October, 
 
1 The new Article 60 of the LGSS states that: ‘1. Women who have had one or more children and 
who are recipients of a contributory retirement, permanent incapacity or widow’s pension shall 
be entitled to a supplement for each child, on account of the impact which, in general, the 
gender gap has on the amount of the contributory pensions received by women from the social 
security system. The right to the supplement for each child shall be granted to the woman, or 
maintained, provided that the supplement is not claimed by and granted to the other parent and, 
where that other parent is also a woman, it shall be granted to the parent in receipt of public 
pensions the total amount of which is less.’ 
VEDRÓN 
 
7 
which declared that the question raised was inadmissible and that there is no 
question of unconstitutionality in Article 60 of the LGSS; 
• that the Court of Justice ruled on this same issue in its judgment of 12 May 
2021 (Case C-130/20), which analysed the ‘compatibility of Article 60 of 
the LGSS with Directive 79/7 on equal treatment for men and women and 
which deals with the assumption that the applicant took voluntary early 
retirement in order to be granted the maternity supplement’; 
• that it is not ‘possible to suggest that there is discrimination under the new 
rules with the amendment of Article 60 of the LGSS by Royal Decree-Law 
No 3/2021, which cannot be applied retrospectively to situations that arose 
prior to the amendment’. 
The NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTE made a written submission 
stating that it ‘opposes making the request’, ‘given that, as stated in the ruling, 
both the Constitutional Court … and the Supreme Court … have confirmed the 
constitutionality of that exclusion’ based on the voluntary decision to ‘contribute 
less’. 
The applicant considered it appropriate to make the request for a preliminary 
ruling, as he believed that, as the Court of Justice indicated in the judgment of 
12 December 2019, the ‘aim pursued by Article 60(1) of the LGSS, namely to 
reward the demographic contribution’ by men and women, ‘is not removed by the 
fact of having voluntarily taken retirement, as the children have contributed as 
much if a pension is accessed involuntarily or voluntarily’. 
6. THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES 
• The case-law of the Court of Justice has repeatedly declared that the 
principle of equality is a general principle of EU law, which was recognised 
before the entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (judgments 
of 29 October 1980, Roquette Frères, C-138/79, and of 13 November 1984, 
Racke, C-283/83). 
• Article 2 TEU acknowledges respecting the principle of equality as one of 
the fundamental values of the European Union. 
The European Union is founded on values that are common to the Member 
States, which include the principle of equality, which must be respected in 
all national measures that impact fundamental rights. 
• Article 6(1) TEU establishes that the Charter of Fundamental Rights has the 
same legal value as the Treaties. 
The fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
include the principle of equality before the law (Article 20), non-
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 5. 2025 – CASE C-403/25 
 
8 
discrimination (Article 21), the right to social protection (Article 34) and the 
principle of proportionality in the limitation of fundamental rights 
(Article 52(1)). 
• The present proceedings are debating the exclusion of those taking early 
retirement from access to a demographic contribution supplement as part of 
a contributory retirement pension. 
Even though social security is a matter that falls under the competence of 
Member States, the dispute concerns the respect for the principle of equality 
before the law and the right to social protection, which are fundamental 
values and rights that are protected by EU law, both in Article 2 TEU and in 
Articles 20, 21 and 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
7. PROPORTIONALITY 
Specifically, national legislation could be in the process of introducing a 
difference in treatment, an inequality, which should be subject to a proportionality 
check in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, 
following the three monitoring phases: 
7.1. Suitability or adequacy 
It must be evaluated whether the measure is adequate for achieving the legitimate 
objective of acknowledging and encouraging demographic contribution to the 
social security system. 
The automatic exclusion of those who voluntarily take early retirement has no 
direct connection with the demographic purpose, as it does not concern the actual 
existence of children or the duration of a person’s working life. In the present 
case, as previously mentioned, the applicant has three children, began working at 
15 years old and has a total amount of contributions that is much greater than the 
average of those who do receive the supplement when retiring at retirement age, 
whether they have 15 years of contributions or are 65 and have 38 years of 
contributions, as the applicant worker had contributed for more than 46 years. 
7.2. Necessity 
It should also be examined whether there were less restrictive measures that would 
have achieved the same objective with a lesser sacrifice of fundamental rights, in 
the present case the principle of equality. 
The legislator could have opted for less restrictive solutions, such as making 
access to the supplement conditional on objective criteria for demographic 
contribution (evidence of the number of children, which the applicant had) and the 
length of contribution (which the applicant also had evidence of, with a much 
VEDRÓN 
 
9 
greater length than the majority of people), without automatically excluding early 
retirees. It should be pointed out, as previously mentioned, that in relation to 
women, the current legislation removes the restriction based on early retirement. 
3. Proportionality sensu stricto (balance or weighting) 
The exclusion is highly detrimental to workers who, despite having contributed 
for a very long period and having had a significant number of children, are denied 
the benefit received by other workers with less merit in terms of demographic or 
pension contributions, with the result that the measure is disproportionate to its 
purpose. As previously indicated, the applicant contributed for more than 
46 years, while workers with 15 years of contributions and fewer children than the 
applicant were entitled to the supplement. 
Finally, it must be reiterated that no question is being raised regarding the current 
legislation, but regarding the legislation that was in force on the date the 
application was made. Contrary to the argument made by the Public Prosecutor, it 
is considered that the Court of Justice did not rule on the same question in its 
judgment of 12 May 2021, Case C-130/20 (also its judgment of 6 May 2021, Case 
C-122/20), as those judgments only analysed the compatibility of Article 60 of the 
LGSS with Directive 79/7/EEC, while in the present case no discrimination on the 
grounds of sex is being alleged. 
That is why this judge considers it appropriate to make a request for a preliminary 
ruling so that the Court of Justice can interpret the relevant principles of EU law 
in relation to the facts of the present case. I would like briefly to indicate that I 
share the reasoning of the dissenting vote on the aforementioned judgment of the 
Constitutional Court and that the responses to the questions raised should be in the 
affirmative, in the sense that the legislation in force when the applicant applied for 
the demographic contribution supplement failed to comply with the principle of 
equality in the TEU, in relation to Articles 20, 21 and 34 and Article 52(1) of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
III. QUESTIONS REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING 
This judicial body is suspending the proceedings and prior notification of the 
parties and of the Public Prosecutor, and refers the following questions to the 
Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU: 
‘1. Should Article 2 TEU, read in conjunction with Articles 20, 21 and 34 
and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union, be interpreted as precluding national legislation that 
excludes those who have voluntarily taken early retirement from 
receiving the demographic contribution supplement, even if they have 
been contributing for much longer and have as many or more children 
as those who retire at the usual age and do receive the supplement? 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 8. 5. 2025 – CASE C-403/25 
 
10 
2. If the answer is in the affirmative, what requirements should be met for 
a difference in treatment based on the type of access to retirement to be 
compatible with the principle of equality before the law (Article 2 
TEU and Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights) and with 
the principle of proportionality (Article 52(1) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights)?’ 
[…] 
[…][Closing procedural formulae]