Valencia's High Court annuls the ex officio registration of a financial adviser as an employee: Social Security failed to prove an employment relationship

The line separating the self-employed from disguised employees is back before the courts, this time with a win for the professional. The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the High Court of the Valencian Community (TSJCV) has annulled the ex officio registration in the General Social Security Regime that the General Treasury (TGSS) imposed on a financial adviser of Banco Mediolanum, as reported by Economist & Jurist.

A commercial contract since 2010

The appellant had provided services to the bank since 2010 under a commercial framework contract for the promotion of financial, investment and insurance products, and was registered in the Special Regime for Self-Employed Workers (RETA). After a Labour Inspectorate action, the TGSS agreed to register her ex officio in the General Regime, with the consequent impact on contributions for the entity.

The Chamber concludes that the automatic conversion cannot stand: the administration did not prove the essential elements of employment — work for another's account and risk, and dependence — to the standard required by an ex officio registration, a measure of special significance that cannot rest on insufficiently contrasted indications. The judgment recalls that the burden of proof in these proceedings lies on whoever seeks to alter the registration regime chosen by the parties.

What an ex officio registration requires

Ex officio registration in the General Regime is one of the highest-impact actions the Social Security administration can adopt: it reclassifies a professional from the RETA to the employees' regime, with retroactive employer contributions for the contracting entity. Precisely because of that significance, case law requires the conversion to rest on specific proof of the elements defining employment: ajenidad — the work is performed for the account and risk of the employer — and dependence — subjection to direction, schedules, orders and discipline.

In the case at hand, the Chamber values that the appellant operated under a commercial framework contract signed in 2010 and that the administration failed to displace that contractual reality with sufficient proof of effective subordination. The judgment does not deny that disguised employment can exist in financial sales networks; what it affirms is that it cannot be presumed, and that the Inspectorate and the Treasury must prove it case by case.

Lessons for principals and professionals

For banks, insurers and asset managers operating with RETA adviser networks, the ruling reinforces the importance of documentary coherence: genuine commercial contracts, invoicing for services, no imposed schedules and autonomy in organisation. For the self-employed, the judgment confirms that keeping evidence of that autonomy — emails, invoices, framework-contract terms — is the best defence against an inspection. The decision adds to the usual cautions for independent professionals, in line with the duties covered in our guide to invoicing and withholding for the self-employed lawyer and the data-protection framework for independent practice.

The case also illustrates the sequence typical of these disputes: an inspection act, an ex officio registration by the Treasury, a reclaim before the administrative channels and, finally, the contentious appeal. Each stage has its own deadlines and evidentiary rules, and the defence is won or lost largely on the file built from day one: the framework contract, the invoices, the organisation of the service. Professionals facing a similar inspection should treat the first inspection request as the beginning of the litigation, not as a mere information request.

Source: Economist & Jurist, verified 3 November 2026.

Related links

• Form 130 and withholding for the self-employed lawyer
• Data protection for the self-employed lawyer
• Self-employed: the second income-tax window and the Q4 direct-debit close