Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
6 comments 
Today, 18/12, the trial at the STF analyzes an agreement that could affect pensions in Brazil by discussing special retirement, special time conversion, and full calculation.
The STF is judging today, 18/12, an agreement in a lawsuit that could impact pensions in Brazil, discussing the end of the minimum age for special retirement, special time conversion, and the return of the full benefits calculation.
Expectations are high because the decision could alter rules for those who are yet to retire and also for those who have already had their benefits denied, depending on how the Supreme Court defines the application and modulation of the effects.
The agenda places pensions in Brazil at the center of three points that, if deemed unconstitutional, may lead to a return of criteria used before the 2019 Pension Reform.
-
The noise law will no longer be in effect at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
The Chamber opens a debate on driver’s licenses at 16 years old as part of a reform that includes around 270 proposals to change the Brazilian Traffic Code and may redesign rules for licensing, enforcement, and circulation in the country.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
The practical effect could be the anticipation of requests, increased value, and revision of strategies for workers exposed to harmful agents.
At the same time, experts warn that the result is not automatic for everyone, as the Supreme Court usually modulates the decision, indicating who will be affected and from when it will apply.
What Is Being Judged and Why It Could Affect Millions
The trial addresses a direct action of unconstitutionality that questions points of the Pension Reform, focusing on rules related to special retirement and the conversion of special time into common time.
In practice, the question is whether the Reform imposed restrictions that should not apply. If the STF overturns these limitations, pensions in Brazil may undergo an important reconfiguration in rules and calculations.
Point 1: End of the Minimum Age for Special Retirement
One of the axes is the end of the minimum age for special retirement. The understanding presented is that, if the decision is favorable, it would be enough to meet the special time of 15, 20, or 25 years, depending on the categorization of the activity.
This could benefit people who had requests denied and also those who are about to complete the special time.
But the right depends on proof of special activity, with documents such as PPP and LTCAT, or other means when the company no longer exists or records cannot be obtained.
Point 2: Conversion of Special Time and What Changes After 2019
Another central point is the conversion of special service time into common service time. Before 2019, this conversion was used to anticipate retirements.
The Reform restricted the conversion for periods after 2019, allowing it only for prior time.
The trial discusses whether this limitation, especially for the time after 2019, can be considered unconstitutional.
If it falls, pensions in Brazil could be recalculated on various fronts because the conversion influences different transition rules.
The basis cites impacts on modalities such as 50% toll, 100% toll, progressive minimum age, and points rule, as the conversion alters the total time and may reposition the insured in the transition.
Point 3: Full Calculation and the Return to 100% of the Average
The third axis is the benefit calculation formula. The basis points out that, before 2019, retirement was calculated with 100% of the average salary, while the Reform began using a logic that starts at 60% and increases according to the contribution time.
If the STF finds that the change is unconstitutional, the value may return to the full level in situations covered by the decision. This is the point with the highest potential financial impact, as it could mean a significant difference in the final amount.
When Does the Decision Take Effect and the Role of Modulation
Even if the STF decides favorably, the basis emphasizes that there is modulation. This is when the Supreme Court defines whether the decision applies only to the future, whether it reaches those who have already retired, those who had benefits denied, or whether it retroactively applies to 2019 due to unconstitutionality.
This stage will determine the real reach of the trial on pensions in Brazil, including for revisions, back payments, and new requests.
What to Do While the STF Decides
The highlighted guidance is that each case depends on the professional and documentary history. Therefore, pension planning appears as a tool to simulate scenarios, adjust strategies, and understand how each possible outcome affects the retirement path.
In a trial with three fronts, minimum age, conversion, and calculation, the impact tends to vary according to the type of activity, the proven special time, and the applicable transition rule.
And now a quick question: if the STF opens the way for changes in pensions in Brazil, do you think the priority should be to review those who have already been harmed since 2019 or focus first on those who will still request the benefit?
No meu caso focar em qem esta dando entrada na aposentadoria depois rever em qem já si aposentou
Deve focar em quem foi prejudicado em 2019. Meu caso em 2019 faltava para me aposentar um ano e três meses. Continuei trabalhando na especial até 2022, completando 27 anos e alguns meses. Me senti muito prejudicada por trabalhar desde nova em dois três empregos concomitantes dia e noite, sem final de semana, feriados, por abrir mão de passar vários natais e finais de anos, festas comemorativas de família, dando sempre meu melhor, sendo comprometida e responsável com meu trabalho, contando que iria me aposentar com salário bom, digno e quando estava chegando próximo de aposentar mudou tudo e fui completamente prejudicada. DECEPÇÃO TOTAL.
Em 2019, dei entrada na minha aposentadoria especial no INSS, foi negado, dei entrada através de um escritório especializado, foi negado, voltei a trabalhar na área de vigilância, dei entrada novamente no INSS, novamente foi negado, entrei novamente pela DPU, defensoria pública da União, tramitou e hoje está empacado a espera da decisão do STF. 🤔🇧🇷