Two and a half years after its launch, 745,559 retirees and pensioners who accepted the Historical Repair Program (RH) completed the homologation process in the courts. Of this total, 704,244 are retired and pensioners who did not make a trial and 41,315 had a trial initiated and desisted to continue it according to the conditions of the Program.
It is estimated that there are another 110,000 more acceptances, of which some 40,000 are delayed because, according to Justice, were sent by ANSeS for approval, but with errors. It is expected that this “impasse” will be resolved quickly and ANSeS can send the following 70,000 acceptances. The pension agency did not inform if there are more acceptances of the Program in view.
From these numbers it is clear that the program achieved the acceptance of less than half of the potential beneficiaries, but it did not substantially reduce the stock of trials estimated at 300,000 cases, despite the fact that between 30,000 and 35,000 sentences are paid per year. According to the Program, the retiree must desist from initiating a trial or must resign to continue the trial initiated.
However, there is a reduction in the number of new lawsuits – 45% – by those who agreed not to initiate new trials in the context of the Historical Reparation, due to the passage of time (deaths) and because the mobility in force since 2009, approved by Congress eliminated a very high source of litigation.
On the other hand, it is pending that the Court pronounce on the modification of the mobility law sanctioned by the end of 2017 because it was applied retroactively, which would be unconstitutional according to a ruling of Chamber III of the Social Security Chamber. And there is more litigation due to differences in the settlement of sentence payments.
When the RH was launched in 2016, for a period of 3 years, the Government estimated that it comprised 2.3 million people: 250,000 had a trial in progress, 50,000 had a final judgment and 2 million charged less than what they were entitled to. it corresponded. The Program would be financed initially with the income of the Fiscal Sincerement (money laundering). These potential demands are mainly due to the fact that, despite the high inflation, during the Eduardo Duhalde government there were no increases in pensions and during Néstor Kirchner there were increases in minimum salaries, but the rest were granted increases of 11% and 21%, according to the retirement amounts. For this segment of retirees, the increase between 2002 and 2006 should be 88.6%, as later established by the Court in the Badaro case.
In addition, salaries that are taken as a reference for calculating the initial salaries that the Court later modified were not adjusted. This led to a sharp increase in litigation and in the Badaro, Elliff and Bianco rulings the Court agreed with the retirees. But these rulings were not extended to all retirees, as the then Ombudsman, Eduardo Mondino, claimed, and that increased the number of trials. In the next few weeks, with 11 years of delay, the Supreme Court will deal with that demand of the former Defender.
According to statements by ANSeS officials, the RH managed to improve the average number of retired retirees and retirees by $ 6,000, but there are no figures on the amount of retroactivities.
For the Program, retroactivities are calculated, for those who have a final judgment, with the RIPTE index (formal salaries), lower than that determined by the Supreme Court in the Elliff and Bianco cases. For those who are in trial, they settle with the same index but with up to 48 months of retroactivity and for those who did not make a judgment from the date of entry into the Program.
For this reason, and despite the fact that the Program benefited more than 700,000 retirees and pensioners who had not sued the State, the social security lawyer Andrea Falcone told Clarin that the ANSeS offer contains “great discounts, conditions the improvement of assets to renounce rights, improvement that was later annulled with the change of the mobility law at the end of 2017. ” He added: “It is up to the retiree to confirm it by the Supreme Court, without taking away or passing it off as lawyers, offices of the ANSeS and Courts.”