Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
73 comments 
Decision in the Judgment of ADI 6309 May Overturn Minimum Age, Reopen Conversion of Service Time, and Allow Higher Benefits for Those Who Worked in Risky Activities in Special Retirement
On December 3, 2025, the Federal Supreme Court will begin hearing ADI 6309, a process that could completely change the rules of special retirement in Brazil. At stake is the potential end of the minimum age, the return of the conversion of special service time to common time after 2019, and an improvement in the calculation of social security benefits.
The decision is considered crucial for those who have worked in activities that endanger health and physical integrity. If the STF considers the current rules unconstitutional, many workers who currently face the minimum age could finally retire earlier, and those who have already retired may gain the right to review their benefits.
What Is at Stake in the Judgment of ADI 6309
The direct action of unconstitutionality 6309 discusses three central points that directly affect special retirement. The first is the minimum age required for a worker, even meeting the contribution time in a risky activity, to be able to retire.
-
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 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.
The second is the end of the conversion of special time to common time after 2019. The third is the method of calculating the value of social security benefits tied to these situations.
The judgment has already been underway for some time, to the point that two ministers who participated in the initial discussion are no longer on the STF. According to what has already been stated, Minister Luís Roberto Barroso voted for the constitutionality of the current rules, arguing that the model as it stands should be maintained.
Minister Edson Fachin, on the other hand, understood that there is unconstitutionality in both the minimum age and the calculation formula and in the very conversion of service time, being supported by another vote in the same sense. Subsequently, Minister Ricardo Lewandowski requested a view of the process, which halted the analysis for years. Now, the case returns to the agenda with a scheduled date.
How Special Retirement Works Today
Special retirement is aimed at those who work in constant exposure to harmful agents or situations that risk health and physical integrity.
The general rule provides for the right to benefits with 15, 20, or 25 years of special activity, depending on the degree of risk and the type of exposure. Among the agents that can grant this right are biological, chemical, and physical hazards, heat, cold, and other factors that put the worker to the test daily.
In practice, for recognition, the insured must prove this exposure through documents such as the PPP and LT, which register the work history in an unhealthy or dangerous environment.
Many people end up “falling short” precisely due to difficulties in proving their exposure or because of the minimum age created in the pension reform, which imposed a new obstacle even for those who already had all the time in special activity.
Why Minimum Age Became the Most Controversial Point
Today, the adopted minimum age as the general rule for special retirement is 60 years in the most common case, which is 25 years of special activity.
This means that even if the worker has completed 25 years of service in a risky environment, they cannot simply retire upon completing that time. They must also reach the minimum age.
The very example cited in the debate shows the practical absurdity of this requirement. If a person starts working in a risky activity at 20 years old and completes 25 years of special work, they would have the right to benefits at 45 years old.
With the minimum age of 60 years, this person would have to work another 15 years in a harmful environment to be able to retire, which goes exactly against the protective objective of special retirement.
Instead of removing the worker from the risk, the rule keeps them exposed for longer, transforming what should be a protective measure into something seen as detrimental.
Possible Impacts for Those Who Have Already Retired or Are in Line
If the STF rules in favor of ADI 6309, i.e., considers the current rules unconstitutional, the effects could be broad.
The end of the minimum age in special retirement would allow many workers who today cannot retire just because of their age to finally access the benefit, as long as they prove the required time in special activity.
Another sensitive point is the return of the conversion of special time to common time after 2019. With this possibility restored, those who worked part of their lives in risky activities could use that time to increase their total contribution time under other retirement rules, which could expedite access to benefits or improve the granted value.
Additionally, people who have already retired under less advantageous conditions could seek a review of their benefits, if the STF’s understanding opens that door within what is to be defined. Nevertheless, it will all depend on the details of the ruling and how the INSS and the Justice will apply that understanding in practice.
Judgment Starts on December 3, but Does Not End There
It is important to emphasize that the judgment of special retirement is scheduled to begin on December 3, 2025, but that does not mean everything will be resolved on that same day.
The process may extend, have requests for views, additional debates, and, after the final decision, there are still appeals and implementation stages.
Even in the event of a favorable outcome for the worker, the path to practical application tends to be long. The STF’s decision is likely to inaugurate a new phase, rather than immediately concluding the matter, especially since it involves significant financial impact on Social Security and a large number of insured individuals.
Therefore, those who have worked or are still working in risky activities need to closely monitor each movement of the Supreme Court to understand if they will have the right to retire earlier, review their benefits, or plan a new pension strategy based on what is established by the ministers.
And you, do you work or have you worked in a risky activity and think it’s fair to end the minimum age in special retirement, or do you fear the impact of this on Social Security accounts?
Isso é o mínimo que o STF pode fazer, pelos trabalhadores uma vergonhahttps://en.clickpetroleoegas.com.br/#utm_campaign=app_download&utm_id=aplicativo&utm_medium=cabecalho&utm_source=site
Isso é o mínimo que o STF pode fazer, pelos trabalhadores uma vergonha
Uma vergonha essa reforma que fizeram, dizer para o Brasileiro que INSS não tem mais dinheiro para pagar aposentado uma mentira pois agora esplodiu o escandalo do rombo, e pra quem tem um pouco de noção sabe que tem muito dinheiro o problema é que tem mais **** do que dinheiro, kkkkkk devolvam os nossos direitos por que o Brasil ta ficando muito pequeno pra tanto ****….