Also pruning or blender arrived at the payments of the final penalties of the pensioners, pensioners and Pensioners and pensions of the Armed Forces. and Security. The Financial Law for the payment of ANSeS sentences has assigned this year, with the changes made so far, an item of $116,479 million compared to the 63,978 million pesos executed in 2023, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office (OPC).
If there are no new budget reinforcements, it is equivalent to a reduction in real terms of 40% discounting inflation of 200% this yearaccording to economists consulted by BCRA (REM).
For its part, the Pension and Pension Fund of the Federal Police and the Military Pension and Pension Institute went from $142,343 million executed in 2023 to $99,268 million in 2024, a nominal decrease of 30%.
In total, the item “Cancellation of pension debts”, compared to an amount executed in 2023 of 206,320 million dollars, in 2024 would amount to 215,747 million dollars, with a nominal increase of 4.6% and a real reduction by 65%.
ANSeS is estimated to have 270,000 trials underway, of which 90,000 with final sentences awaiting payment.
According to the Pensions Act, the sentences must be final canceled within 120 days. This includes paying retroactively from the two years prior to the start of the process and readjustment of current salaries.
But this does not happen because ANSeS pays the amount established by the State Budget every year, which amounts to around 35,000/40,000 convictions. And the stock isn’t shrinking as new lawsuits are filed and lawyers for those retire They believe that in many cases the payment of the judgment is poorly paid and they return to litigation.
There are no more trials with a final sentence because the Court of Cassation continues without ruling in relation to appeals which have second degree sentences, contested by the ANSeS, which have been dragging on for years.
The peak in legal cases occurred as a consequence of the rulings of the Supreme Court, Badaro cases (2007) for the lower increases granted between 2002 and 2006 and Elliff cases (2009) – which corrected the variation in pensions and salaries that were taken as a reference for the calculation of the initial credit.
• Then added the Court ruling (Lucio Blanco case) which ratified the ISBIC index – which shows a higher increase – for salary readjustments (concerns those who retired or stopped working before February 2018) standardizing the jurisdictional criteria in resolving pensioners’ claims.
• Since the beginning of 2018, new claims added such as the ruling of Section III of the Chamber of Social Security, in the case Fernández Pastor Miguel v/ANSeS, which declared unconstitutional the 5.71% increase received by pensioners in March 2018 based on the mobility law approved during the government of Mauricio Macri. The Chamber ordered the application of the previous mobility formula, calculated at 14.5%, as the rules cannot be applied retroactively. The ANSeS appealed against the sentence, the Public Prosecutor ruled in favor of Fernández Pastor’s request and the Court’s decision is still awaited.
• There are also various claims in favor of cancellation of disability pensions, for the discounting of the Gain on pension amounts and for the bad settlement of paid judgments.
• Also due to the limits that ANSeS applies to the liquidation of the highest assets. The judges apply a ruling of the Court of Cassation (“Actis Caporale” of August 1999) which establishes that the limits on pension assets cannot generate a reduction exceeding 15% (“confiscational limit”).
• With the increases by decree 2020 of the pension pyramid (greater increases for those who earn less at the expense of medium and high salaries), after the 19.5% loss suffered by all pensioners during the Macri government, the Guarantor for the Elderly they promoted a class action and individual appeals were filed against the retroactive suspension of mobility.
• There have been several sentences that declared the pension increases by decree applied by the previous Government in 2020 unconstitutional because they were lower than those that would have resulted from the formula approved in 2017. In some cases, it was condemned to pay the difference.
• There is also claims of those who earn average and higher wagesThis is because over the last 5 years they have accumulated a significant loss compared to the salaries of active workers and have not received any salary bonuses, as is the case for the lowest paid.
With Javier Milei’s DNU it is assumed that court claims will increase due to the continuing decline in salaries and the unconstitutionality of the recent DNU 274/2024.
Source: Clarin
