The Justice has annulled a claim of 9,290.52 euros from the Minimum Vital Income (IMV) after the National Institute of Social Security (INSS) considered several monthly payments to have been unduly collected after a new family member moved into the beneficiary's home. The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia has confirmed the first-instance ruling and has rejected the appeal presented by Social Security, which aimed to recover the amounts paid between February and November 2024.
The case revolves around a particularly relevant issue for those receiving this benefit: what happens when the composition of the household unit changes. The IMV Law requires the communication of family, personal, or economic circumstances that may affect the aid and establishes, in general terms, that the household unit must have been constituted at least six months prior to the application. However, the court understands that these rules did not justify in this specific case the termination of the benefit and the demand for the return of almost 9,300 euros.
The IMV was requested for a household made up of four adults
The beneficiary submitted her initial application on September 29, 2022, declaring a household unit composed of four adult persons. The mother of her spouse was subsequently registered at the same address on January 29, 2024, and on July 22 of that year, the holder formally requested the INSS to include that family member in the file. Two days later, the agency finally recognized the right to the Minimum Vital Income with economic effects from October 2022.
The problem arose months later when Social Security reviewed the file. The INSS considered that the entry of a fifth person had modified the household unit and that the beneficiary had not communicated the change within the legal deadline of 30 calendar days. Furthermore, it understood that the new composition of the household could not meet the requirement of six months of seniority required by law. With those arguments, it terminated the benefit through a resolution in January 2025 and claimed 9,290.52 euros corresponding to the period from February 1 to November 30, 2024.
The Law 19/2021 effectively establishes that beneficiaries must communicate any circumstances that may affect the maintenance of the benefit within a maximum of 30 days. It also sets, as a general rule, that a household unit must have been continuously constituted for at least six months before applying for the IMV.
The court points out that the INSS was already aware of the change
The decisive argument for the judges lies in the chronology. When the INSS definitively approved the benefit on July 24, 2024, the beneficiary had already requested two days earlier that the mother of her partner be included. Therefore, the Administration had that information when it decided to recognize the right to the IMV.
The Catalan TSJ thus shares the criterion previously adopted by the court of first instance: it was not coherent to recognize the benefit while already knowing the new family composition and subsequently use that same circumstance to consider the payments undue. The Chamber adds another essential element: the inclusion of the family member did not result in an increase in the household income nor did it modify the economic vulnerability situation that justified access to the IMV.
This is especially relevant because the Minimum Vital Income is precisely designed to guarantee a minimum income level to households in a situation of vulnerability. The law calculates that situation taking into account the economic resources of all members of the household unit and adjusts the guaranteed income based on the number of people that make it up.
She will also have to recover 242 euros that had been seized
The first-instance ruling, issued on February 25, 2026, annulled the administrative decision and rendered the claim for 9,290.52 euros ineffective. Furthermore, it ordered the INSS to return to the beneficiary 242.09 euros that had been seized on October 29, 2025 within the reimbursement procedure.
The Social Security appealed to the Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia, but the Social Chamber has once again upheld the beneficiary in its ruling 4515/2026, of July 28. The court dismisses the INSS's appeal and fully maintains the previous ruling, without imposing costs. The resolution may still be subject, if the procedural requirements are met, to a cassation appeal for the unification of doctrine before the Supreme Court.
The ruling does not eliminate the obligation to communicate changes
The ruling does not mean that those who receive the IMV can incorporate people into their home without informing Social Security. The regulations still require to report any family, personal, economic, or address changes that may affect the benefit, and the IMV portal itself maintains a specific procedure to communicate these variations.
It also does not mean that the incorporation of a family member can never reduce or extinguish the IMV. If that person contributes new income or assets, it can change the economic calculation of the household. Likewise, the composition of the household unit influences both the access requirements and the amount that corresponds to be received.
What this ruling establishes is more specific: in this case, it was not appropriate to demand 9,290 euros solely for the incorporation of a family member when the Administration was already aware of that circumstance upon recognizing the right and the change had not eliminated the economic vulnerability of the household. This combination of facts is what has led the Justice to invalidate the claim.
What to do if the composition of the household changes
For IMV recipients, the case leaves a particularly important practical recommendation: to communicate as soon as possible any change in the people living in the household and keep a proof of having done so. Social Security allows electronic reporting of family, personal, economic, address, or bank account modifications.
If subsequently the INSS reviews the benefit and claims amounts it considers improperly received, the affected person can file a prior claim and, if this is rejected, go to social jurisdiction. The Catalan resolution demonstrates that a claim for the return of the IMV is not necessarily definitive merely because it was issued by Social Security: the courts can review whether the termination of the aid and the calculation of the amounts demanded truly align with the circumstances of the household and the Administration's prior actions.