Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
6 min of reading 
14 comments 
On December 5, 2025, minimum-age-free retirement is already liberated by acquired rights and the 50% penalty rule, while the STF judges special retirement and the conversion of special time into common time, with direct impact on INSS insured individuals.
On December 5, 2025, the minimum-age-free retirement ceased to be just a distant promise and became a concrete reality for insured individuals who fit into two rules already provided for in the legislation: the acquired right before the 2019 Pension Reform and the transition rule with a 50 percent penalty. These modalities allow individuals to bypass the minimum age requirement, provided that the contribution time requirements are met.
At the same time, the Supreme Federal Court resumed on December 3, 2025, the trial that could open a third avenue for minimum-age-free retirement, with direct impact on special retirement, the calculation method with 100 percent of the average salary, and the possibility of converting special time into common time even after the reform. The result has not yet been concluded, but the case has the potential to historically alter the landscape of retirements in the country.
Two Rules of Minimum-Age-Free Retirement Are Already Valid Today
Even after the 2019 Pension Reform, Brazil maintains two legal forms of minimum-age-free retirement for those who meet certain criteria.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
The first is retirement with acquired rights before the constitutional change.
The second is the transitional rule with a 50 percent penalty, specifically created for those who were caught off guard by the reform just before completing the required time.
These two rules are independent of what the STF will still decide.
In other words, the law already permits minimum-age-free retirement in specific situations, and many insured individuals may be close to meeting the requirements without being fully aware of it.
Knowing the conditions of each modality is essential to avoid hasty decisions and financial losses when applying for the benefit.
Acquired Right Before the 2019 Pension Reform
The acquired right rule is considered the safest by experts.
Those who met all the retirement requirements by November 13, 2019, the effective date of the Pension Reform, have a guaranteed right to a minimum-age-free retirement, calculated according to the old rules.
In this situation, the benefit can be calculated with 100 percent of the average salary, applying the possibility of excluding 20 percent of the lowest contribution salaries from the history.
In practice, the calculation considers 80 percent of the best salaries, which tends to raise the final benefit amount.
Another important characteristic is that the acquired right does not expire over time.
If the person already met the conditions before the reform, they can retire later, in 2025 or beyond, keeping the previous rules, as long as they can prove the requirements to the INSS.
This is a form of minimum-age-free retirement that preserves rights even years after the constitutional change.
50% Penalty Rule Allows Anticipating the Benefit
The second possibility is the so-called 50 percent penalty rule, a transition rule for those who, in 2019, were up to two years away from completing the required contribution time by the old rule and were affected by the reform.
In this model, the insured needs to complete the remaining time in 2019 plus 50 percent of the penalty on that period, with no minimum age requirement.
The calculation, however, is made with a previdential factor, which may reduce the benefit amount depending on age and contribution time.
Even with the factor, the penalty rule can allow for minimum-age-free retirement in a shorter timeframe than other post-reform alternatives.
In some situations, when combined with point rules, it is possible to reduce the impact of the factor, balancing the anticipation of the benefit and the monthly amount.
For this reason, it is pointed out as one of the most relevant strategies for those who were about to retire in 2019.
STF Analyzes Possible Third Rule for Minimum-Age-Free Retirement
In addition to the two modalities already consolidated in law, the Supreme Federal Court is analyzing a set of requests that could create, in practice, a third form of minimum-age-free retirement, aimed at special retirement and situations of work time in harmful health conditions.
The trial was resumed on December 3, 2025, but no new votes have been presented since then, keeping the scenario open.
The process includes three main points: the end of the minimum age in special retirement, the calculation method of the average salary, and the possibility of converting special time into common time after the Pension Reform.
If the majority of ministers are favorable to the taxpayer, the country could move from two to three concrete avenues of minimum-age-free retirement, expanding options for those who work or have worked exposed to harmful agents.
Until then, what is in force are just the two rules already provided in ordinary legislation and in the constitutional amendment of 2019.
End of Special Minimum Age, 100% of the Average, and Conversion of Special Time
The first point under discussion at the STF is the end of the minimum age requirement in special retirement. Currently, in addition to the time of exposure to harmful agents, the legislation requires minimum ages of 55, 58, or 60 years, depending on the degree of risk and the professional activity.
The thesis under analysis argues that this requirement may be unconstitutional for unhealthy activities, as it prolongs the worker’s presence in harmful environments.
If the STF agrees, special retirement could revert to depending only on 15, 20, or 25 years of exposure, without a minimum age, becoming another form of minimum-age-free retirement for those working in special conditions.
The second point addresses the restoration of 100 percent of the average in special retirement.
Today, the general rule establishes 60 percent of the average, plus 2 percent for each additional year, which reduces the initial benefit amount.
A favorable decision could restore the entirety, eliminating the reduction applied after the reform.
The third point discusses the conversion of special time into common time even after 2019.
The Pension Reform prohibited this conversion, but the STF may recognize that the right remains valid.
This would allow the transformation of periods of special activity into common time with multipliers, anticipating common retirements and increasing the time considered in the benefit calculation, even for those already retired, depending on the modulation that may be defined.
What Changes in Practice for Those Seeking Minimum-Age-Free Retirement
In practice, the current scenario already offers two entry points for minimum-age-free retirement: the acquired right before November 13, 2019, and the 50 percent penalty rule for those who were up to two years from retirement when the reform took effect.
The ongoing trial at the STF may open a third avenue linked to special retirement, in addition to redefining the benefit value threshold with the possible return of 100 percent of the average salary and reopening the conversion of special time into common after 2019.
This would affect both insured individuals still active and retirees, if the court extends effects to periods already granted.
Until the Supreme Court concludes the trial, the safest path is to understand in detail the two already active rules of minimum-age-free retirement, checking dates, contribution time, and special activity history to assess whether it is worth waiting for the decision or if a right is already consolidated under current rules.
In light of all this, in your opinion, should the STF prioritize the end of the special minimum age, the return of 100 percent of the average, or the conversion of special time into common to make minimum-age-free retirement fairer?
De acordo com os bois, o STF é malvadão! (Ironia)
Você por lei é considerado idoso a partir dos 60, mas para aposentar a partir dos 65 e 39 anos de contribuição, e quando consegue pega uma merreca.O STF adorará se aposentar com 75, por ter salários altos além de várias regalias financeiras, e os casos de processos de grandes valores são direcionados para seus escritórios de advocacia, e aí .
De acordo com os bois, o STF é malvadão! (Ironia)
e enquanto isso os jumentos pastam