The pruning or blender also
reached the payments of the final sentences of retirees
, pensioners and Retirements and pensions of the Armed Forces. and Security. The Budget for the payment of sentences of the ANSeS has been assigned this year, with the modifications made so far, an item of
$116,479 million
versus 63,978 million pesos executed in 2023, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office. (OPC )
If there are no new budgetary reinforcements, it is equivalent to a
reduction in real terms of 40%, discounting inflation of 200% for this year
, according to the economists consulted by the BCRA (REM).
For its part, the Retirement and Pension Fund of the Federal Police and the Military Retirement and Pension Institute went from $142,343 million executed in 2023 to $99,268 million in 2024, a nominal drop of 30%.
In total, the item “Cancellation of Pension Origin Debts”, compared to an amount executed in 2023 of $206,320 million, in 2024 it would total $215,747 million, a nominal increase of 4.6% and a real reduction of 65%.
It is estimated that ANSeS has
270,000 trials in process, of which 90,000 have final sentences that are pending payment.
According to the pension law, final sentences must be
canceled within 120 days.
This includes the payment of retroactivity from two years prior to the start of the trial and the readjustment of current salaries.
But that is not fulfilled because ANSeS pays every year the amount established by the National Budget, which reached around 35,000/40,000 sentences. And the stock is not reduced because new lawsuits are filed and the lawyers of these retirees
consider that in many cases the payment of the sentence is poorly settled, they return to litigation.
The trials with a final ruling are not greater because the Supreme Court continues without ruling in relation to claims that have second instance rulings, appealed by ANSeS, that have been dragging on for years.
The peak in lawsuits 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 (2009) - which adjusted the variation in pensions and salaries that were They are taken as a reference for the calculation of the initial credit.
• Then the Court ruling was added (Lucio Blanco case) that ratified the ISBIC index – which shows a higher increase – for salary readjustments (covers those who retired or ceased activity before February 2018) standardizing judicial criteria when resolving retiree claims.
• Since the beginning of 2018,
new claims were added,
such as the ruling of Chamber III of the Social Security Chamber, in the Fernández Pastor Miguel v/ANSeS case, which declared unconstitutional the 5.71% increase that retirees received in March 2018 according to the mobility law approved during the government of Mauricio Macri. The Chamber ordered that the previous mobility formula be applied, which was calculated at 14.5%, on the grounds that the laws cannot be applied retroactively. ANSeS appealed the ruling, the Court Attorney ruled in favor of Fernández Pastor's claim and the Court's ruling is still awaited.
•There are also various claims for the
cancellation of disability pensions,
for the discounting of Earnings on retirement amounts and for poor settlement of paid judgments.
•Also due to the limits that ANSeS applies on the settlement of the highest assets. The judges apply a ruling of the Supreme Court (“Actis Caporale” of August 1999) that determines that the limits on pension assets cannot generate a reduction of more than 15% (“limit of confiscatory nature”).
•With the increases by decree in 2020 in the pension pyramid (greater increases for those who earn the least to the detriment of medium and high salaries), after the 19.5% loss suffered by all retirees during Macri's administration, the The Ombudsman's Office for the Elderly promoted a class action lawsuit and individual claims were filed against the retroactive suspension of mobility.
•There were several rulings declaring unconstitutional the increases in pensions by decree applied by the previous Government in 2020 because they were lower than those that would have arisen from the formula approved in 2017. In some cases the difference was ordered to be paid.
•There are also
claims from those who earn medium and higher salaries
because in the last 5 years they have accumulated a significant loss in relation to the salaries of active workers and they did not receive any compensation bonus, as in the case of those with the lowest salaries. .
With Javier Milei's DNU, it is assumed that judicial claims will increase because salaries continued to fall and due to the unconstitutionality of the recent DNU 274/2024.