Discrimination in Survivor’s Pension Grant: Muñoz Díaz v. Spain
Case of Muñoz Díaz v. Spain
A. Context
María Luisa Muñoz Díaz, a Spanish Rom born in 1956, married “M.D.” in November 1971 according to Roma rites. Both belonged to the Roma community. The union produced six children.
B. Summary
The applicant, Ms. Muñoz Díaz, filed a claim with the Labour Court after the INSS denied her a survivor’s pension following the death of M.D., also a Spanish Rom. The INSS based its refusal solely on the grounds that their marriage was not recognized under Spanish law.
The Labour Court ruled in favor of Ms. Muñoz Díaz, granting her a survivor’s pension. The Court argued that Roma marriages, while not formally registered, are not against public order or morality and enjoy social recognition. Denying the pension based on this technicality constituted discrimination based on ethnicity, violating Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution and Directive 2000/43/EC.
However, the INSS appealed to the High Court of Justice, which overturned the Labour Court’s decision. The High Court cited Article 49 of the Civil Code, stating that marriages must adhere to state-sanctioned formalities to have legal effect. Roma marriage rites, lacking this formal recognition, held no legal weight in this context.
Ms. Muñoz Díaz then filed an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, invoking the principle of non-discrimination based on race and social status. The Court dismissed her appeal, arguing that the couple had chosen not to formalize their marriage through recognized legal means and therefore did not face discrimination.
A dissenting opinion challenged this decision, referencing judgment no. 199/2004 where the Constitutional Court had found a violation of the right to equality in a similar case. The dissenting judge highlighted the inconsistency in the State’s actions: recognizing the family through a family record book, granting them large-family status, providing healthcare, and collecting contributions from M.D. for over nineteen years, yet denying the survivor’s pension.
Following the third amendment of Law no. 40/2007 on social security measures, Ms. Muñoz Díaz was eventually granted a survivor’s pension as M.D.’s partner, effective from January 1, 2007.
C. Analysis
Ms. Muñoz Díaz brought her case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), alleging a violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 12 (right to marry) of the Convention.
She highlighted that under the General Social Security Act, a spouse in a marriage later deemed null could still receive a pension if they had entered the marriage in good faith.
The Spanish government argued that the difference in treatment stemmed from Ms. Muñoz Díaz not being legally married to M.D. but rather in a cohabiting relationship.
The Union Romaní, intervening as amicus curiae, emphasized that Roma marriage is no different from other forms of marriage in its essence.
The ECHR, acknowledging the domestic authorities’ confirmation of Ms. Muñoz Díaz’s good faith belief in her marriage, found a disproportionate difference in treatment compared to cases where the validity of a marriage was questioned but ultimately upheld.
However, the Court did not find the lack of civil recognition for Roma marriage to be discriminatory in itself, as civil marriage remained accessible to Roma individuals under the same conditions as non-Roma individuals.
The ECHR ruled that Spain had to pay Ms. Muñoz Díaz €70,000 in damages and €5,412.56 for costs and expenses within three months of the judgment becoming final.