The Supreme Federal Court (STF) is about to deliberate on an important issue that may affect the lives of many workers under the General Social Security Scheme (RGPS). The main point of the debate concerns the adequacy of payment of a social security contribution that is lower than the required minimum monthly amount and whether this shortfall results in the loss of insured status.
Identified as Extraordinary Appeal (RE) 1.544.748 and classified under Theme 1.467, the judgment has gained general repercussions, which means that the decision will serve as a reference for analogous situations throughout the country. Thus, judicial actions related to the subject remain suspended while the Court does not present its position.
Debate on Insured Quality
The issue under discussion is linked to the 2019 pension reform and focuses especially on intermittent workers, those who work part-time, and individual contributors who, for various reasons, make payments below the minimum. The quality of the insured is essential for accessing benefits such as sick pay and maternity pay and depends on meeting specific requirements, including the proper collection of contributions.
Consequences of the 2019 Reform
The controversy originated after the approval of Constitutional Amendment No. 103, which establishes that only contributions made with amounts equal to or greater than the minimum are valid for counting the contribution time. There are different interpretations among the various groups: some argue that the rule applies only to the contribution time for retirement, while others argue that it also affects the quality of insured status.
Possible Impacts of the Decision
The decision to be made by the STF may have direct repercussions for workers who make reduced contributions. Among the most vulnerable groups, we can highlight:
- intermittent workers;
- professionals with variable incomes;
- workers on reduced hours;
- individual contributors who, in certain months, have low earnings.
If the STF stipulates that supplementation is necessary to maintain the quality of the insured, many of these professionals may face difficulties in accessing social security benefits.
The Decision of the National Uniformization Panel
The origin of the appeal to the STF stems from a decision by the National Uniformization Panel of the Special Federal Courts (TNU), which considered that a contribution lower than the minimum does not automatically eliminate the quality of insured status. For the TNU, this new rule applies only to the contribution period, preserving the social security protection of those who frequently pay amounts below the minimum due to the specificities of their activities.
INSS Positioning
In its defense, the National Social Security Institute (INSS) argues that allowing contributions below the minimum to maintain the quality of insured status would compromise the stability of the social security system. The INSS emphasizes that this requirement was created to ensure the sustainability of the General Social Security Scheme and that ignoring it could result in a greater granting of benefits without the corresponding revenue needed to sustain them.
Recognition of General Repercussion
The president of the STF, Edson Fachin, highlighted the importance of the issue due to its economic, social, and political repercussions, which led to the recognition of general repercussion and the consequent suspension of related processes until the case is resolved. The definition provided by the STF will be crucial for the future actions of other courts in similar matters.
Looking to the Future
With no defined outcome, the result of the judgment may follow two directions: validating the TNU’s interpretation that considers contributions below the minimum as relevant only for counting the contribution time, or adopting the INSS position, which requires that the minimum amount be met to preserve the quality of insured status. The decision will have broad consequences on thousands of legal processes and will affect many citizens with reduced contributions.
Guidelines During the Process
While the decision is not made, the rules to be followed remain unchanged for the insured. Those who are in doubt about their contributions should consult their National Register of Social Information (CNIS) and consider seeking guidance from the INSS or from professionals specialized in Social Security Law for a better understanding of their situation, particularly before applying for benefits.
The judgment in question is vital for delineating the rules governing contributions to the RGPS and its relation to the quality of insured status, thus influencing the security and social security rights of countless workers in Brazil.