Mendonça diverges from Moraes and advocates revision of a lifetime for retirement
Minister André Mendonça of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) voted this week in favor of the thesis of the whole life revision, positioning himself against the rapporteur of the case, Alexandre de Moraes, and arguing that the contributions prior to July 1994 are considered in the calculation of INSS retirements.
The trial, which takes place in the Virtual Plenary of the Supreme Court, analyzes an appeal presented by the INSS and must be completed by June 13, except if any minister submit a request for a view or prominence.
Motta will take progress to the rite to comply with the STF’s decision in the case of Zambelli
Mayor stated that there are no more alternatives to the house; parliamentary must lose mandate
Bolsonaro interrogation: time, where to watch and order of the defendants in the STF
Testimonials mark the beginning of a new stage of the trial of those involved in the coup plot
Mendonça argued that the thesis contrary to the review, adopted by the Supreme Court in 2024 by judging two direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADIs), should not be applied to the current process. For him, the insured’s right opt for the most beneficial rule, based on the entire contributory history, must be preserved.
Learn more
Context: round trip from the thesis in the STF
The so -called “all -life revision” was validated by the Supreme Court in 2022, recognizing that INSS policyholders could include in the calculation of their benefits the contributions made before the Real Plan, that is, before July 1994.
In 2024, however, the Court reversed this understanding by judging a 1999 law. At the time, the Supreme Court signed a thesis that the insured cannot opt for the more favorable rule, even if it results in greater benefit. This consolidated the understanding that the rules of the social security factor must be followed without margin for choice.
Minister Alexandre de Moraes, rapporteur of the current appeal, voted to invalidate the revision of his life, aligning himself with the decision taken last year. For Moraes, the jurisprudence established in the ADIs must be applied to the specific case, ending the possibility of revision.
IMPACT OF THE DECISION
The discussion has a strong impact on INSS’s retirees and insureds, especially for those who had higher income before 1994 and could receive higher benefits if the whole contributory life was taken into account.
Experts point out that the indefinition generates legal insecurity for both the social security system and retirees. Depending on the outcome, thousands of policyholders who have entered actions requesting the review may lose the right to recalculate the benefit based on older contributions.
