Through the recent STS, rec. 3484/2022, of July 10, 2024, ECLI:ES:TS:2024:3950the high court has confirmed that the benefit for cessation of activity contemplated in article 9 of Royal Decree-Law 24/2020 is incompatible with employed work. This decision derives from an appeal for the unification of doctrine filed by a self-employed worker, who requested the benefit after having continued to provide services as an employee in another company.
Regulatory context of the benefit for cessation of activity for the self-employed associated with COVID-19
To place the context of the norm whose interpretation the TS analyzes (art. 9 of RD-Law 24/2020), it has It should be remembered that, given the situation created by the pandemic and the economic and social impact caused by the Covid-19, a specific regulation was designed for the benefit for temporary cessation of activityl,y that were collected by Royal Decree Laws 8/2020 of March 17 (art. 17, which stated that the perception will be incompatible with any other benefit of the Social Security system); 11/2020, March 31; 13/2020, April 7; 15/2020, April 21; 17/2020, May 5; 18/2020, May 26; 24/2020, June 26 (art. 9); and 30/2020, of September 29 (art. 13 and DA 4).
The last of the cited standards, the DA 4 of Royal Decree-Law 30/2020, of September 29whose heading was titled: “Right to the benefit of cessation of activity compatible with self-employment and extension of benefits already caused under article 9 of Royal Decree-Law 24/2020, of June 26, on social measures of reactivation of employment and protection of self-employment and competitiveness of the industrial sector»in what Concerning this matter, it ruled that notwithstanding what is regulated in the previous sections, the provision cessation of activity may be compatible with employed work, outlining below the applicable conditions. That provision and text in which it is included is subsequent to the situation now prosecuted
The norm initially creating these particular rules on the questioned benefit—the RD Law 8/2020—, highlighted in its statement of reasons the situation generated for the self-employed by the pandemic, referring to the stoppage of activity and the reduction of billing. In RD-Law 24/2020, the specific compatibility that regulates this benefit with self-employment -with certain requirements-, establishes it in its explanatory statement on the basis of the intended purpose of maintaining the activity or possibility of starting it in the self-employed with seasonal activities. The later RD 30/2020 extends the benefit for cessation of activity with the particularities established in art. 9 of RD-law 24/2020, although subject to the maintenance of certain requirements and the updating of levels of billing, or allows you to request the benefit yourself ex new with most of the rules provided in the art. 9 of RD Law 24/2020, but including a unique measure relating to compatibility – with limitations – with employed work.
Assumption examined
The case that gave rise to this decision corresponds to a self-employed person who, after having received the benefit for cessation of activity due to the health emergency situation, requested said aid again without having interrupted her work as an employed worker. Although the applicant had been a beneficiary of the benefit in previous stages, her second request was rejected. The mutual insurance company assured that the benefit was disabled because the plaintiff was working part-time for another company.
Interpretation that the regulations that regulate the benefit for cessation of activity by the TS
The ruling, handed down on July 10, 2024, is based on the interpretation that the regulations that regulate the benefit for cessation of activity imply a reference to the General Law of Social Security (LGSS), which explicitly establishes the incompatibilities in this area. In this context, the Court frames its analysis in the compatibility between the different labor regulations and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the activity of self-employed workers.
The Court argues that The fact of regulating exceptional measures under a pandemic context does not imply the creation of a new figure with respect to the LGSSand that the general regulations should be considered as supplementary to the emergency measures. This is reflected in a series of articles of the LGSS that establish the requirements for access to said benefit, as well as the incompatibilities. The ruling states that he art. 342.1 of the LGSS establishes the incompatibility between the receipt of the benefit and any paid work.
The controversy had intensified due to the existence of different interpretations of the regulations related to the reactivation of employment and the protection of self-employed workers in the post-pandemic context. In particular, the STSJ of La Rioja, rec. 241/2021, of April 8, 2022 had revoked a previous ruling that ruled in favor of the worker, thus uniting different currents in jurisprudence on this issue.
The Supreme Court ruling highlights the importance of requirements established in the law that governs the matterwhich have not been modified by the emergency regulations available during the pandemic. Furthermore, it clarifies that subsequent provisions, such as Royal Decree-Law 30/2020, which explicitly mention the possibility of combining the benefit with employed work, do not apply retroactively to previous cases.
As case law settles, self-employed workers whose activity also involves employed employment will not be eligible to accept the cessation of activity benefit under current conditions. This decision has a direct impact on the formulation of future benefit claims, as it determines that performing work as an employee at the same time as managing the benefit for cessation of activity is incompatible by law.
