Review of a lifetime: INSS seeks to sensitize judges – 02/05/2023 – Rômulo Saraiva

From 1999 until today, it’s been 24 years since the INSS (National Institute of Social Security) applies throughout Brazil a calculation method that causes damage to thousands of people. Popularized in the last decade, the whole life review arises to correct this distortion. Allows the benefit to take into account all amounts paid, including those prior to 1994.

Since 2019, the INSS has been condemned by the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) to apply it in the country, a decision ratified three years later by the STF (Federal Supreme Court). When the legal issue is finally secured, the INSS has been making it difficult to put it into practice, especially for those who have a lawsuit in court, using the justification that they need to adapt their computer system. If this attitude already exists in Justice, the administrative revisions are still completely stopped.

Before ministers of the Federal Supreme Court or judges of first instance, the INSS practice of creating embarrassment throughout the country to avoid or postpone the increase provided by the review has multiplied. The reasons are many! The data from the Cnis (National Social Information Register) are unreliable and need to be validated, because the decision has yet to become final or because the INSS computer system has not been adapted to calculate the revision. The institute – which spent more than 20 years miscalculating across the country – now justifies that such concern is to avoid revising totally unequal, mistaken, incorrect and overestimated benefits.

There are several petitions from the INSS to raise awareness that the judge should suspend judicial proceedings based on these reasons. It is a practice that comes close to ‘jus sperniandi’a jocular expression adopted in the legal universe, applied to those who have succumbed to an action and face the nonconformity of accepting it.

Now, if for more than two decades there was the possibility of applying two coexisting rules, and the INSS unilaterally decided to apply one to the detriment of the other, it took the risk of doing so. But it is undeniable that he knew that there could be a different interpretation, as in fact it did. In addition to the risk, the INSS saved a lot by ignoring a more advantageous rule. With that, it left out retirees who cannot claim anything else, as the ten-year period of decay has already ended. It does not seem reasonable now, after so much delay and judicial convictions, for the municipality to ask for more time.

The Advocacy General of the Union, an institution that defends the INSS in court, has a team of support accountants precisely to back up the calculations of those who are sued in court. It never hurts to remember that the review of your entire life is an exception demand, as most retirees do not fit into it.

Therefore, if the INSS was not prepared from a technological and/or operational point of view for the lifetime review, this is due to its sheer disorganization, which unfortunately is a characteristic of the autarchy, especially in recent years when the review was gaining momentum. form.

It is worth remembering that there was a legal determination since 1999 (art. 29, I and II of Law 8.213) with the forecast of applying the definitive rule foreseen in the calculation of the benefit salary, evident since it was more favorable than the transition rule. Thus, the main INSS benefit law was ignored from the perspective of its accounting execution at the administrative level.

Furthermore, the calculation of the lifetime review is not a rocket science. Although the Cnis (National Social Information Register) is not perfect, it has a rich history of salaries before and after 1994. With this information, it is possible to identify the revision for many. The INSS would need to adjust the system to take advantage of remote wages, instead of just starting in July 1994.

Even without the adjustment to the computer system, the Institute has already been reviewing several lawsuits individually, which undermines the technical argument that it is unable to do so. In this way, instead of the INSS trying to convince judges in every judicial process in the country to paralyze the lifetime review, it should engage in a task force to adapt the calculation system more quickly, in order to guarantee that this right finally arrive with agility to those who fit this review.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.