[ad_1]
Insured persons who have gone to court and obtained disapproval may have to return the money to the National Institute of Social Security (INSS). Without confirming the number of actions in which retirees are claiming reimbursement for what has been paid more, the Office of the Attorney General (AGU) informed that only those who received the benefit after provisional decisions (early retirement)
"Those who have received amounts in a final judicial decision [ou seja, em ações já concluídas] will not need to repay the amounts, but may see their benefit revised by cancellation," said the AGU in a statement .
The disappointment is the possibility for the retiree to request a review of the benefit to be returned to work and contribute to social security. In 2016, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruled that the disapproval was illegal, on the grounds that it was not provided for by law. At the time, more than 180,000 cases were arrested throughout the country pending the court's decision.
Meanwhile, explained social security law professor Guilherme Portanova, the STF left the effects of the decision. benefits that had already been recalculated and paid to retirees. Portanova is a member of the Legal Council of the Brazilian Confederation of Retired and Retired Persons (Cobap).
For the teacher, the INSS could not make such an accusation, since the 2016 trial has not yet been concluded.
Portanova pointed out that if the STF does not decide on embargoes, there are legal elements to discuss non-repayments.
Portanova pointed out that, if the STF does not decide on embargoes, there are legal elements to discuss the non-return. values, as well as the maintenance of the most affected values with disapproval, even in the termination actions. With or without legal feasibility, the government will seek the return of resources and, in this case, the process of those who have obtained the benefit of the recalculation in court should be dealt with individually
"They [INSS] know that". there is misinformation in Brazil My orientation is that the retiree should seek a specialized lawyer, because there are many chances of not needing to return the money. "
Background – According to Professor Portanova, until the year 1994, there was an advantage called peculio, which consisted in restoring, in a single quota, the contributions paid to the INSS by the citizen who continued to work after retiring according to age and the time of contribution.
The law that extinguished the nest egg also provided that who continued to work does not have to contribute to social security. However, another law, published a year later, again required retiree contributions, but without any financial benefit in return, on the grounds that the social security contribution is in solidarity (for all workers, not individually).
At the time of the extinguishment of the nest egg, disapproval actions began to emerge so that those who continued to work could recalculate their retirement and benefit from more benefits based on rebadessments to the Social Security
. (19659003) (function (d, s, id)), which would be the basis of the National Congress, to establish the return of the egg or to settle the disappearance and create criteria for the recalculation of profit.
var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName (s) [0];
if (d.getElementById (id))
return;
js = d.createElement (s);
js.id = id;
js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/pt_BR/all.js#xfbml=1";
fjs.parentNode.insertBefore (js, fjs);
}
(document, "script," & "facebook-jssdk")
)
[ad_2]
Source link
