The Supreme Court has expanded access to the one-off unemployment benefit to include self-employed workers who are relatives
In its judgment no. 258/2026 of 11 March 2026, the Supreme Court has established a criterion of great practical relevance by recognising that self-employed workers who are relatives have the right to convert their unemployment benefit into a one-off amount to pay their social security contributions, thus correcting the restrictive interpretations previously maintained by the authorities.
The case stems from a common situation in practice: a worker, after leaving her job and starting to receive unemployment benefits, requested to capitalise the benefit to finance her contributions to the Special Regime for Self-Employed Workers (RETA), after joining her spouse's business as a self-employed family helper. Although the State Public Employment Service (SEPE) initially recognised the right, it later decided to revoke it, claiming that this agreement did not meet the purpose of capitalisation, as it did not involve an initial investment or the start of a proper business activity.
The Supreme Court clearly rejects this argument and confirms the ruling of the lower court, establishing that the applicable legislation, particularly Articles 33 and 34 of the Self-Employed Workers' Statute, does not exclude self-employed workers assisted by relatives from accessing this measure. In this regard, the Chamber points out that the legislator has expressly defined the reasons for exclusion, which include economically dependent self-employed workers linked to their former employer, but not the category of family collaborator. Consequently, it concludes that no additional restrictions can be introduced through restrictive interpretations, in line with the principle that one cannot distinguish where the law does not. One of the most significant aspects of the judgment lies in its interpretation of the objective and scope of capitalisation of unemployment benefits.
Contrary to the administrative view, which links this measure exclusively to the financing of initial investments for the development of a business activity, the Supreme Court adopts a broader and goal-oriented interpretation. Thus, it states that the purpose of this regime is to promote self-employment, a purpose that is also fulfilled when the benefit is used to pay social security contributions, even when there is no initial investment in the strict sense of the word. In this context, the Supreme Court emphasises that the beneficiary self-employed worker, even when joining an already existing business, likewise bears his own costs, specifically the contributions to RETA, which justifies access to this public support mechanism. Thus, the judgment equates, for the purpose of accessing capitalisation, the situation of the self-employed person who owns the business with that of the self-employed who helps their family, understanding that in both cases the same goal of promoting self-employment applies. The difference regarding the existence or non-existence of an initial investment is, according to the Court, not a decisive factor, as the regulations expressly foresee the possibility of using the benefit for the periodic payment of social security contributions as a valid means to achieve this goal. Furthermore, the Chamber highlights the absence of any indication of abuse of the law in the case in question, ruling out that the use of this mechanism can be considered, by itself, an improper means of accessing the benefit. This factor reinforces the conclusion that the subjective scope of the regulation should not be restricted based on generalized hypotheses.
From a practical perspective, the ruling has significant impact, as it paves the way for the review of numerous cases in which SEPE has denied or revoked the capitalisation of unemployment benefits in cases involving self-employed family workers. Additionally, it consolidates a broad interpretation of the concept of 'investment' for the purpose of one-off payment, which goes beyond mere initial capital contribution and also includes necessary expenses for the effective exercise of the activity, such as social security contributions.
In summary, the Supreme Court reinforces the purposive nature of policies to promote self-employment and clearly defines the limits of administrative action, establishing that only those cases expressly provided for by the legislator can be excluded from access to these measures. This provides greater legal certainty to a traditionally controversial concept and broadens the real scope of one of the key instruments for promoting self-employment.
Article from the Labour Law Department of ECIJA Madrid.
