The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) published this Thursday a correction of the judgment in which by, by mistakegranted a woman a double maternity leave for being a single motherby confirming the criteria of the Court that had already given him that right in the first instance, when he really intended to revoke it.
In the original wording of the sentence, dated October 3 but released this weekthe Social Chamber of the TSJC formally rejects the Social Security appeal against the first resolution favorable to women, but it does so due to a simple material error: it writes “dismisses” when it really intended to say that “it considers the appeal.”
In a clarifying order made public this Thursday, the Court explains that it made an “obvious error,” because the reasoning that precedes that ruling is “clear” and is expressed in the opposite direction.
The judge who explained the TSJC criteria at the time recalled that, “regardless of the considerations” that she in particular has about the reasons that led the Social Court number 7 of Santa Cruz de Tenerife in 2022 to agree with the woman, the reality is that the Supreme Court had already resolved similar claims and denied her.
“The truth is that the Supreme Court denies the right of the parent to extend her leave beyond the 16 weeks that corresponds to her as a parent, without accumulating additional leave for being a sole parent. And since the sentence violates, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, the article invoked in the appeal, it must be upheld and the sentence revoked in its entirety,” she explained.
This is how the ruling of the Social Court ended, which should have been followed by a ruling approving the appeal filed by Social Security. However, due to a material error, the court wrote the opposite, rejecting it.
In its explanatory order, TSJC highlights: “In the present case, it is clear that a material error has been committed by stating in the sentence and in the ruling that the appeal is dismissed when it is an estimate of the same, as clearly stated. argues and is included in the legal foundations, so it is necessary to clarify the sentence in this sense.”
