[ad_1]
In a virtual session, the Full Chamber of the Constitutional Court annulled a ruling of that same corporation in 2019, which at the time had protected the rights to due process and social security of a woman who was the spouse of a man who died, for what she claimed the survivor’s pension.
That ruling of 2019 he had denied the allowance to the permanent companion who lived with this person in his last two years of life.
The Court annulled that decision of 2019 considering that the sentence omitted that the permanent companion lived with the pensioner, according to what was proven, between 1992 and 1995, the date on which he died.
The spouse, on the other hand, lived with the pensioner between January 16, 1972 and April 1, 1992, as it was accredited by the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Cali.
(Also read: Who inherits the pension: the current or previous couple?)
For the Full Chamber of the Constitutional Court, in the case of his or her spouse, the time of coexistence, either two or five years, must be accredited, but it is not necessary that it be immediately before the death of the pensioner, but at any time. So the wife would also have the right to the allowance, not only the permanent spouse.
The vote in this case was five against four, as they saved their vote magistrates Diana Fajardo, Luis Guillermo Guerrero, Alejandro Linares and Gloria Ortiz.
(You may be interested: Although coexistence is not permanent, you can inherit a pension: Court).
Sources of the high court assure that one of the reasons for some rescue was that for some magistrates, the pension should be 100 percent for the permanent partner because they considered that in this case the original article 47 of law 100 of 1993 should be applied, and not law 797 of 2003 that distinguished between simultaneous and non-simultaneous coexistence between spouse and permanent partner
Upon annulment of the ruling that recognized the right only to the spouse, a ruling must be prepared to replace the previous ruling in which the high court must make clear how the pension is divided between the two women who claimed it.
JUSTICE
