Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Supreme Court Decision Immediately Redefines Retirement Calculation, Preserves Amounts Received Until April 2024, and Authorizes INSS to Apply Post-1994 Rule
The STF decided on Tuesday night, the 25th, to reject the so-called full life review, with a vote count of 8×3 against the thesis. The judgment concluded a long period of debate regarding the possibility of including contributions prior to the Real Plan of 1994 in the calculations of retirement benefits from INSS. The analysis occurred after a request was presented to align the Court’s understanding with the position adopted in April 2024.
The decision establishes that retirees who received an increase in benefits due to the review will not have to return amounts already received.
However, INSS was authorized to reduce payments going forward. According to the government, maintaining the rule could generate an impact of R$ 480 billion, an estimate that considers both individual decisions and a possible extension to all insured individuals.
-
Reduction of working hours to 40 hours could cost R$ 77 billion to the GDP, raise food prices, and put up to 2.7 million jobs at risk, data indicates.
-
Supermarket giant buys 12 stores, Distribution Center, and two chains and accelerates expansion
-
There are only four days left until the Income Tax deadline, and the Federal Revenue Service is still awaiting over 13 million returns. Those who miss the 11:59 PM deadline on May 29 will incur a minimum fine of R$ 165.74 with no discount.
-
More than 220 Brazilian industries have already fled towards Paraguay and no one seems to be paying attention. The small neighbor is growing three times faster than Brazil and attracting billions in foreign investments while the South American giant remains stagnant.
Composition of Votes
The rapporteur Alexandre de Moraes opened the dissenting opinion against the review, followed by Cristiano Zanin, Gilmar Mendes, Luís Roberto Barroso, Cármen Lúcia, Kassio Nunes Marques, Luiz Fux, and Dias Toffoli.
On the other side, the votes in favor of the thesis came from André Mendonça, Rosa Weber, prior to her retirement, and Edson Fachin.
The result confirms the reading adopted by the Supreme Court in April, when the Court assessed that the rule considering salaries post-1994 is mandatory and offers no alternative to the insured.
History of the Thesis
In December 2022, the Supreme Court had recognized the full life review by allowing policyholders to use contributions prior to the beginning of the Real Plan.
The scenario changed in April 2024 when the Court, judging another case, decided that the law does not authorize a choice between calculation bases and must exclusively follow salaries after 1994. Since the overturning took place in a separate process, it was necessary to revise the understanding in the original case.
The adjustment now concluded eliminates uncertainties that had lingered since the upheaval in April, as thousands of cases awaited resolution. According to information mentioned during the judgment, approximately 140,000 actions are still in progress.
Status of Retirees Who Had Favorable Decisions
The Court established an important milestone: amounts received until April 5, 2024, will not need to be returned.
The understanding is that retirees cannot be harmed for having sought justice while the thesis was still accepted. Legal fees and costs related to actions filed until the same date will also not be charged.
Despite the preservation of past payments, INSS can apply the calculation without previous contributions to the Real Plan from now on, which means a reduction in the benefit for those who depended on the review.
The potential financial impact, estimated at R$ 480 billion if the thesis had been maintained, weighed heavily in the ministers’ assessment.
The Supreme Court’s definition is likely to guide decisions across the country and may conclude part of the ongoing actions. The thesis, which mobilized retirees for years, now sets a new benchmark for social security calculations and reaffirms the mandatory nature of the criterion based solely on contributions after 1994.
Be the first to react!