PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 35214/09) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Spanish national, Mr Antonio Aldeguer Tomás (“the applicant”), on 22 June 2009.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr M. Ródenas Pérez, a lawyer practising in Madrid. The Spanish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr F. Sanz Gandásegui, State Attorney.

The applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his sexual orientation in that he had been denied a survivor’s pension following the death of his partner, with whom he had lived in a de facto marital relationship for twelve years. In substance the applicant also relied on Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

On 18 October 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.

Judge Luis López Guerra, the judge elected in respect of Spain, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court). On 11 February 2015, the President of the Section accordingly appointed Ms Blanca Lozano Cutanda to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Pozuelo de Alarcón (Madrid).

The applicant cohabited with another man in a homosexual relationship from 1990 until the latter’s death on 2 July 2002. During that period they lived together in an apartment belonging to the applicant’s partner. When his partner died, the sister and only heir of the applicant’s partner gave the applicant, because of the relationship he had had with her brother, an apartment that had belonged to the applicant’s late partner and in which the couple had spent their holidays together since 1990.

On 19 September 2003 the applicant claimed social security allowances as a surviving spouse, under section 174 (1) of the General Social Security Act, arguing that he had cohabited with his deceased partner for many years.

On 22 September 2003 the National Institute of Social Security (Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social, hereafter referred to as “INSS”) refused to grant the applicant a survivor’s pension on the ground that since he had not been married to the deceased person, he could not legally be considered as his surviving spouse for the purposes of section 174 (1) of the General Social Security Act. That decision was formally served on 13 June 2005.

On 1 July 2005 Law no. 13/2005 amending the provisions of the Civil Code with respect to the right to enter into marriage was passed. Two days later it entered into force. This law legalised same-sex marriage in Spain. In accordance with its first additional provision all legal and regulatory provisions making reference to marriage should be understood thereafter as applicable to all marriages irrespective of the sex of its members (see paragraph 35 below).

On 5 July 2005 the applicant filed an administrative complaint against the decision of 22 September 2003. This complaint was dismissed by the INSS on 11 August 2005. The INSS noted that there was no provision in the legislation in force that allowed, for the purposes of social security rights, the person who had been cohabiting with the deceased to gain the status of a widower.

On 26 September 2005 the applicant challenged that decision before the Madrid Social Tribunal no. 33 (“the Social Tribunal”).

In a judgment of 14 November 2005 the Social Tribunal ruled for the applicant. The Social Tribunal firstly outlined that the facts of the case had to be assessed in the light of the newly enacted Law no. 13/2005, which was already in force and deemed constitutional by the tribunal. As to the merits, the Social Tribunal observed that the issue at stake was whether the applicant, as the surviving partner of a same-sex relationship that ended (following his partner’s death) before the entry into force of Law no. 13/2005, had the right to a survivor’s pension. The Social Tribunal then reiterated that, according to the well-established domestic case-law, surviving partners of unmarried couples were not entitled to a survivor’s pension under section 174 of the General Social Security Act, marriage being a constitutive element to access any such social-security benefit; that the applicant had been prevented from marrying his partner because same-sex marriage had not been recognised in domestic law at the time his partner died; that the social security administration had relied on the fact that the couple had not married to refuse the applicant a survivor’s pension; and that it was evident that after the entry into force of Law no. 13/2005, surviving spouses of same-sex marriages were entitled to survivors’ pensions on the same footing as survivors of different-sex marriages.

The Social Tribunal was of the view that the solution to the legal issue raised by the applicant’s case depended on whether it could be inferred from Law no. 13/2005 that Parliament’s intention had been that surviving partners of same-sex couples who had been prevented from marrying under the former legislation could access a survivor’s pension on a similar footing to same-sex couples who could marry after the entering into force of that Act. The Social Tribunal drew attention in this regard to the provisions and the explanatory memorandum of Law no. 13/2005 to contend that this new legislation had a very strong egalitarian purpose, and that from the date it entered into force, that is to say 3 July 2005, all legal provisions concerning marriage should be interpreted on the basis of the first additional provision of Law no. 13/2005 as applying fully to same-sex marriage (see paragraph 35 below). The Social Tribunal held in this regard that: “This is a wide-ranging provision which affects all the other provisions of the legal system making reference to marriage. From now onwards all references to marriage established in the law shall be understood as applying also to marriage celebrated between two persons of the same sex. Accordingly, whoever shall be called to interpret or apply any marriage-related provision should do so in egalitarian terms without taking into consideration whether the spouses are of the same or different sex”.

The Social Tribunal further recalled that additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981 of 7 July 1981 amending the provisions of the Civil Code pertaining to marriage and the procedure to be followed for cases of annulment, judicial separation and divorce, recognised the right to obtain a survivor’s pension for individuals who had been prevented from marrying a person who later died by the legislation in force until then, provided that he or she had cohabited in a relationship similar to marriage with the deceased person and that the deceased had died before Law no. 30/1981 entered into force.

The Social Tribunal stressed that such a provision was included in order to provide a solution for those cohabiting couples consisting of a man and a woman who could not have married under the legislation in force until that time, and thus did not qualify for a survivor’s pension, because one or even both of them had still been married to another person whom they had been prevented from divorcing, divorce having been legally impossible in Spain until the passing of Law no. 30/1981. The Social Tribunal considered that the applicant’s circumstances were “fully comparable” to those outlined in additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981 in so far as: “- the claimant could not marry his partner because the legislation then in force prevented him from doing so;

the claimant had shared a marital life with his partner until the latter’s death;

the latter’s death had taken place before the entry into force of Law no. 13/2005”

The Social Tribunal acknowledged, however, that whereas Law no. 30/1981 was aimed at protecting the rights of those cohabiting heterosexual couples who were prevented from marrying because divorce was prohibited at the time, Law no. 13/2005 was aimed at protecting the rights of those who could not marry on account of their sexual orientation, and that this distinction was the main impediment to the recognition of the applicant’s right to a survivor’s pension.

The Social Tribunal considered nonetheless that treating these two groups differently would not be in harmony with the strong egalitarian intention expressed by Parliament with the passing of Law no. 13/2005 and that, accordingly, additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981 was applicable to the applicant by force of additional provision no. 1 of Law no. 13/2005. The Social Tribunal stated as follows: “Therefore, the interpretation that in my opinion better fits the legislature’s intention is the following:

If the first additional provision of Law no. 13/2005 sets out that provisions making reference to marriage shall apply irrespective of the sex of the spouses,

And one of [these provisions], currently in force to provide access to a survivor’s pension, is additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981.

The only method to apply it in a way which is consistent with the egalitarian intention of the legislature is to do so irrespective of the sexual orientation of the members of the cohabiting couple.

In order to ensure that sexual orientation does not constitute discriminatory grounds in the application of additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981, the right thereby recognised shall currently be interpreted as providing a solution to factual situations such as the one in the instant case in which the impediment to access to a survivor’s pension is no other than the sexual orientation [of the claimant].”

As regards the administration’s submission that in the area of social security benefits the governing principle was that of non-retroactivity of laws and that according to the law in force at the time the applicant’s partner died the former did not qualify for a survivor’s pension because they were not married, the Social Tribunal was of the view that this general principle was not absolute and that it did not apply where there was a specific rule giving retroactive effect to laws more favourable to the citizens, as is true of the instant case. Thus, additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981 should be read in the light of the first additional provision of Law no. 13/2005.

As to the degree of retroactivity that should be given to additional provision 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981 in the applicant’s case, the Social Tribunal relied on the constitutive effects of Law no. 13/2005 which created new rights and was effective only from the date it entered into force. Accordingly, the Social Tribunal recognised the applicant’s right to be awarded a survivor’s pension with effect from 3 July 2005.

The INSS and the Treasury General of Social Security appealed (recurso de suplicación) against that judgment to the Madrid High Court of Justice (Tribunal Superior de Justicia).

On 18 September 2006 the Madrid High Court of Justice upheld the appeal and reversed the first-instance judgment. The court found that the legislature had not intended Law no. 13/2005 to cover same-sex partnerships which had been ended by the death of one of the partners before said law had entered into force and that the lack of protection of these unions could not be considered discriminatory in the light of Article 14 of the Spanish Constitution.

For the court, it was only as from the entry into force of Law no. 13/2005 that marriage between same-sex couples was recognised and that this law affected other rights for those persons who would wish to marry thereafter. Hence, the court was of the view that Law no. 13/2005 had no retroactive effects, except as otherwise expressly provided, which was not the case at hand.

The court further stated that even though Law no. 13/2005 had been inspired by the constitutional principle of equality, prior legislation preventing same-sex marriage could not be deemed unconstitutional as contrary to either any constitutional principle or to the right not to be discriminated against. The court referred to constitutional case-law dating from 1994 according to which the requisite of heterosexuality for the purposes of marriage was fully constitutional and that it was within the margin of appreciation of the public authorities to treat heterosexual marriages more favourably than homosexual partnerships. In this connection, the court maintained that despite the reference in the preamble of Law no. 13/2005 (see paragraph 35 below) to the discriminatory treatment to which homosexuals had traditionally been subjected on account of their sexual orientation, the aim of Parliament in passing that law was merely to respond to a new social reality and award homosexuals the right to marry, but not to protect same-sex partnerships which had already ended before its enactment.

The court referred to constitutional case-law according to which a difference in legal treatment of individuals due to subsequent changes in the law does not necessarily entail discrimination, even if those persons could be said to be in similar circumstances. Given the complexity that a change in legislation might involve, it was for Parliament to establish the characteristics of the legal transition, either by introducing retroactivity clauses or by restricting the application of the new legislation to circumstances arising after its entry into force.

The court noted in this regard that Law no. 13/2005 had not included any provision concerning same-sex partnerships which had already ended at the time of its entry into force and that it strictly concerned same-sex couples still in existence at that time and who would be willing to enter into marriage. The court considered that the difference between the situations before and after the passing of Law no. 13/2005 was essentially an expression of the principle of succession of laws without constitutional implications as regards the right not to be discriminated against.

As regards the applicability to the present case of additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981, the Madrid High Court of Justice found that this provision was not applicable to the applicant’s case for two main reasons. Firstly, that provision could not be considered as among the provisions to which the first additional provision of Law no. 13/2005 referred. Additional provision no. 10 (2) was, as the Constitutional Court had established, of a provisional or transitory nature and had been envisaged for those specific cases in which one of the partners had died before the entry into force of Law no. 30/1981. It had not been intended to govern future situations. Secondly, that provision had been envisaged for a totally different situation from that of the applicant. Additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981 was aimed at guaranteeing a survivor’s pension to those heterosexuals who had been prevented from marrying their out-of wedlock partner because divorce had not been legal at the time of the latter’s death. The inability to remarry for those affected by additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/1981 was based on the fact that divorce was not permitted at the time. The institution of marriage was open to them in their capacity as heterosexuals. On the contrary, same-sex couples were absolutely prevented from marrying before Law no. 13/2005 since the institution of marriage was until then restricted to heterosexual couples.

Furthermore, the court contended that the applicant could never have fulfilled the more uxorio marital cohabitation requirement established by additional provision no. 10 (2) of Law no. 30/ 1981 of, because only those who were in principle eligible for marriage but had been prevented from marrying for whatever reason could qualify for de facto marital cohabitation. The applicant and his partner could have never cohabited “as if married” before the entry into force of Law no. 13/2005, because before then they were ineligible for marriage as they were both male.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law seeking harmonisation of the case-law (recurso de casación para la unificación de doctrina). In a decision of 27 June 2007, the Supreme Court (Social Chamber) declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that the decision produced for purposes of comparison, specifically a judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands of 7 November 2003, was not relevant. That decision was served on 26 July 2007.

Relying on Articles 14 (principle of equality and prohibition of discrimination) and 24 § 1 (right to effective judicial protection), the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court. In a decision of 11 February 2009, served on 17 February 2009, the Constitutional Court declared the appeal inadmissible on the grounds that the applicant had failed to substantiate the special constitutional relevance of his complaints.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e1
001-163660_a11_em1
CODE
DIRECT
35214/09
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-163660_a11_e2
001-163660_a11_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Kingdom of Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e3
001-163660_a11_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Spanish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e4
001-163660_a11_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Antonio Aldeguer Tomás
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e5
001-163660_a11_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
22 June 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e6
001-163660_a11_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Ródenas Pérez
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e7
001-163660_a11_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Madrid
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e2
001-163660_a11_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
001-163660_a11_em2
Spanish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e2
001-163660_a11_em9
ORG
NO_MASK
001-163660_a11_em8
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e8
001-163660_a11_em10
PERSON
QUASI
Mr F. Sanz Gandásegui
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e9
001-163660_a11_em11
DEM
QUASI
sexual orientation
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em12
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e11
001-163660_a11_em13
DATETIME
NO_MASK
twelve years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e12
001-163660_a11_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
18 October 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e2
001-163660_a11_em15
ORG
NO_MASK
Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e13
001-163660_a11_em16
PERSON
QUASI
Luis López Guerra
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e2
001-163660_a11_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
001-163660_a11_em2
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e14
001-163660_a11_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
11 February 2015
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e15
001-163660_a11_em19
PERSON
QUASI
Ms Blanca Lozano Cutanda
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e16
001-163660_a11_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
1955
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-163660_a11_e17
001-163660_a11_em21
LOC
QUASI
Pozuelo de Alarcón
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e7
001-163660_a11_em22
LOC
QUASI
Madrid
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e18
001-163660_a11_em23
DEM
QUASI
cohabited with another man
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e19
001-163660_a11_em24
DEM
QUASI
homosexual relationship
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e20
001-163660_a11_em25
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e21
001-163660_a11_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
2 July 2002
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em27
DEM
QUASI
partner
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em28
DEM
QUASI
partner
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em29
DEM
QUASI
partner
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em30
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e20
001-163660_a11_em31
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1990
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e22
001-163660_a11_em32
DATETIME
QUASI
19 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-163660_a11_e23
001-163660_a11_em33
MISC
QUASI
General Social Security Act
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em34
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e24
001-163660_a11_em35
DATETIME
NO_MASK
many years
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e25
001-163660_a11_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e26
001-163660_a11_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
National Institute of Social Security
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e26
001-163660_a11_em38
ORG
NO_MASK
001-163660_a11_em37
Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e26
001-163660_a11_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
001-163660_a11_em37
INSS
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e23
001-163660_a11_em40
MISC
QUASI
General Social Security Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e27
001-163660_a11_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
13 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e28
001-163660_a11_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
1 July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em43
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e30
001-163660_a11_em44
DATETIME
NO_MASK
Two days later
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e31
001-163660_a11_em45
MISC
QUASI
same-sex marriage
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e2
001-163660_a11_em46
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e32
001-163660_a11_em47
MISC
QUASI
the sex of its members
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e33
001-163660_a11_em48
DATETIME
QUASI
5 July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e25
001-163660_a11_em49
DATETIME
QUASI
22 September 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e26
001-163660_a11_em50
ORG
NO_MASK
INSS
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e34
001-163660_a11_em51
DATETIME
QUASI
11 August 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e26
001-163660_a11_em52
ORG
NO_MASK
INSS
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e35
001-163660_a11_em53
DATETIME
QUASI
26 September 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em54
ORG
QUASI
Madrid Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em55
ORG
QUASI
001-163660_a11_em54
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e37
001-163660_a11_em56
DATETIME
QUASI
14 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em57
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em58
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em59
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em60
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em61
DEM
QUASI
partner
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e38
001-163660_a11_em62
DEM
QUASI
same-sex relationship
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em63
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em64
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em65
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em66
DEM
QUASI
partner
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e31
001-163660_a11_em67
MISC
QUASI
same-sex marriage
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em68
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em69
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em70
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e40
001-163660_a11_em71
MISC
QUASI
different-sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em72
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em73
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e41
001-163660_a11_em74
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em75
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em76
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e23
001-163660_a11_em77
MISC
NO_MASK
001-163660_a11_em33
Act
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em78
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em79
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e42
001-163660_a11_em80
DATETIME
QUASI
3 July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em81
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e31
001-163660_a11_em82
MISC
QUASI
same-sex marriage
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em83
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e43
001-163660_a11_em84
MISC
QUASI
between two persons of the same sex
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e44
001-163660_a11_em85
MISC
QUASI
same or different sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em86
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em87
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e46
001-163660_a11_em88
DATETIME
QUASI
7 July 1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em89
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em90
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e2
001-163660_a11_em91
LOC
NO_MASK
Spain
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em92
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em93
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em94
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em95
DEM
QUASI
partner
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em96
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em97
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em98
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em99
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e47
001-163660_a11_em100
MISC
QUASI
heterosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em101
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e9
001-163660_a11_em102
DEM
QUASI
sexual orientation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em103
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e41
001-163660_a11_em104
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em105
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em106
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em107
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em108
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em109
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e48
001-163660_a11_em110
MISC
QUASI
sex of the spouses
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em111
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e9
001-163660_a11_em112
DEM
QUASI
sexual orientation
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e9
001-163660_a11_em113
DEM
QUASI
sexual orientation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em114
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e9
001-163660_a11_em115
DEM
QUASI
sexual orientation
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em116
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em117
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em118
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em119
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em120
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em121
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em122
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e36
001-163660_a11_em123
ORG
QUASI
Social Tribunal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e42
001-163660_a11_em124
DATETIME
QUASI
3 July 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e26
001-163660_a11_em125
ORG
NO_MASK
INSS
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e49
001-163660_a11_em126
ORG
NO_MASK
001-163660_a11_em127
Treasury General of Social Security
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e49
001-163660_a11_em127
ORG
NO_MASK
recurso de suplicación
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e50
001-163660_a11_em128
ORG
QUASI
Madrid High Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e51
001-163660_a11_em129
ORG
QUASI
Tribunal Superior de Justicia
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e52
001-163660_a11_em130
DATETIME
QUASI
18 September 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e50
001-163660_a11_em131
ORG
QUASI
Madrid High Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em132
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em133
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em134
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em135
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em136
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em137
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e31
001-163660_a11_em138
MISC
QUASI
same-sex marriage
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e53
001-163660_a11_em139
DATETIME
NO_MASK
1994
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e54
001-163660_a11_em140
MISC
QUASI
heterosexuality
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e47
001-163660_a11_em141
MISC
QUASI
heterosexual
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e55
001-163660_a11_em142
DEM
QUASI
homosexual partnerships
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em143
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e56
001-163660_a11_em144
MISC
QUASI
homosexuals
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e9
001-163660_a11_em145
DEM
QUASI
sexual orientation
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e41
001-163660_a11_em146
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e56
001-163660_a11_em147
MISC
QUASI
homosexuals
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em148
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e41
001-163660_a11_em149
ORG
NO_MASK
Parliament
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em150
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em151
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em152
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em153
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em154
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e50
001-163660_a11_em155
ORG
QUASI
Madrid High Court of Justice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em156
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e57
001-163660_a11_em157
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em158
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em159
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e58
001-163660_a11_em160
MISC
QUASI
heterosexuals
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em161
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e45
001-163660_a11_em162
CODE
QUASI
30/1981
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e58
001-163660_a11_em163
MISC
QUASI
heterosexuals
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e39
001-163660_a11_em164
DEM
QUASI
same-sex
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em165
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e47
001-163660_a11_em166
MISC
QUASI
heterosexual
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e59
001-163660_a11_em167
CODE
QUASI
30/ 1981
SEX
check
001-163660_a11_e10
001-163660_a11_em168
DEM
QUASI
partner
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e29
001-163660_a11_em169
CODE
QUASI
13/2005
SEX
insert
001-163660_a11_e60
001-163660_a11_em170
MISC
QUASI
both male
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e61
001-163660_a11_em171
DATETIME
QUASI
27 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e62
001-163660_a11_em172
ORG
NO_MASK
Supreme Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-163660_a11_e63
001-163660_a11_em173
ORG
NO_MASK
Social Chamber
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e64
001-163660_a11_em174
ORG
QUASI
High Court of Justice of the Canary Islands
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e65
001-163660_a11_em175
DATETIME
QUASI
7 November 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e66
001-163660_a11_em176
DATETIME
QUASI
26 July 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e57
001-163660_a11_em177
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e67
001-163660_a11_em178
DATETIME
QUASI
11 February 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e68
001-163660_a11_em179
DATETIME
QUASI
17 February 2009
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-163660_a11_e57
001-163660_a11_em180
ORG
NO_MASK
Constitutional Court
Antonio Aldeguer Tomás
ESP
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Antonio Aldeguer Tomás