Ihe fight against social fraud, which the government wants to relaunch, enjoys strong support from judges: after the Council of State, the Court of Cassation has just decided that fraudsters must reimburse all benefits unduly affected, in the twenty-year limit.
The litigation on the occasion of which she spoke was as follows: in 2006, a widower, Mr. X, holder of a survivor’s pension, requested that the National Old-Age Insurance Fund (CNAV) pay him his pension personal pension (from 983 euros raw). He then omits to inform him that he will receive a supplementary pension from Arrco (473 euros gross). However, to continue to receive the survivor’s pension, he must justify resources not exceeding a certain ceiling, which will be exceeded in May 2009.
In 2014, the CNAV controls its income, by means of its tax notices. She accuses him of having concealed his supplementary pension as well as ” movable capital “ – in this case, the 26 euros of annual interest he receives from a Livret A.
It notes that, since May 2009, he could no longer benefit from a survivor’s pension (approximately 330 euros net per month). On May 28, 2015, she asked him to repay her… 24,000 euros, unduly received from May 2009 until April 2015. She began to recover them, leaving him an amount equal to the active solidarity income (RSA).
Mr. X took legal action and his lawyer, Mr.e Chaouki Gaddada, pleads the error. It requests the application of the short prescription that the social security code (aarticle L. 355-3) provided for in this case, and which only authorizes the CNAV to claim two years of undue benefits.
“Civil Death”
Alas, the trial magistrates judge that Mr. X lied by omission, which constitutes fraud. In this case, they set aside the short prescription in favor of the five-year prescription provided for by the civil code (article 2224). Its starting point is no longer the day of the last payment, but that of the discovery of the fraud, from which the creditor has five years to act, and, according to the magistrates, recover ” five years “ receivables, those of previous years being, according to them, time-barred.
The CNAV, which does not agree with this interpretation of the five-year prescription, is appealing in cassation. His lawyer, Mr.e Jean-Jacques Gatineau disputes that the five-year period to act also applies to the claim. He argues that since the prescription reform of June 17, 2008, this is a deadline “stopper” twenty years old (registered in the aarticle 2232 of the civil code), which limits the recoverable period – in such a way that an action initiated after thirty years of fraud can only allow the recovery of twenty years of debt. This is also what the Council of State has judged, since three judgments of September 20, 2019 (420406, 420685 And 420909).
You have 20.17% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.