Division II of the Federal Social Security ordered the return to former members who volunteer contributions made to its capital accounts of the administrators . Download the complete failure
Source: eljurista.net
Division II of the Federal Social Security declared unconstitutional Article 6 of Law 26,425, which provides for the transfer to ANSES of voluntary contributions had been made members of the administrators to their capital accounts.
The case was initiated by an injunction filed by someone who claimed that the state will return its mandatory and voluntary contributions to the Pension Funds, considering that it had affected his property rights.
In its ruling, the maids ratified that mandatory contributions are not the property of the contributor, but felt different with respect to voluntary contributions.
The judge said in his vow that the voluntary contributions "Are covered by the guarantee of the inviolability of property referred to in the arts. 14 and 17 of the Constitution. The first of these articles, guarantees all citizens the right to 'use and dispose' of their property under the laws that regulate their exercise. The second, in turn, states that "Property is inviolable and no inhabitant of the Nation can be deprived thereof except by virtue of a sentence based on law."
"The decision free actor-affiliated individual capitalization system, depositing his own money for a specific purpose in an account opened in his name on a AFJP, had the fundamental support a sound policy framework that guaranteed a full and shotcrete economic performance over time (Law 24,241, art. 56 et seq. and regulation), decision (and expectation), which eventually was totally frustrated as a result of altered unilateral and unannounced by the Law 26,425, "the judge in his vote.
According to the ruling," the case, then, of sums paid voluntarily by the actor in order to increase the credit of their future pension benefits or to anticipate the date of its perception, ie, amounts not being compulsory, could well have been intended by the owner to a different purpose, and whose origin may in many cases also reveal the injustice that would impede the free availability in cases like the present, clearly resemble the actor reasonably claim to recover the sums entrusted to the administrator of the pension fund of your choice dissolved 'ope legis' by the National Government by Law 26,425.
In their vote, Judge Emilio Fernandez stated that "those voluntary contributions, which were only made by one who performs it induced a return to profitability, improving pension credit, to a greater extent, are not the reason for the social security assets, rather, are an extension the estate of the contributor or one for which it was made. The State can not dispose of them, because they were not intended for the public, but to a special account, independent and own the contributor.
The minority vote, the judge said Nora Carmen Dorado " as it emerges from the articles of the law which repealed the Pension Plan, the objective pursued through the extraordinary contributions statements, there was improvement of the pension, which remains in the new law with the possibility of referral to a 'new private system 'formed from the transformation of the Pension Funds, which no objection could be on the part of former regime members capitalization at this point. "
addition, the judge stated that" with regard to voluntary contributions beyond the legislative solution finally adopted, I believe that the concept applied to mandatory contributions can be extended and applied by analogy, since the law itself 24,241, stated that they were voluntary contributions for the purpose of improving the regular retirement benefit. That is not a kind of insurance was funded, who reaches retirement age handed it updated the retiree, but that it would be prorated for the purpose of having improved retirement.
In the lawsuit, the person also demanded the return of mandatory contributions made to the Pension Funds. On this point, and unlike the decision for voluntary contributions, the three maids agreed that "the social security contributions mandatory workers (in dependent and independent), as well as contributions from employers, are intangible public goods (such as government revenues), not belonging to the private domain of individuals, forced to solve them in a certain percentage of their income, and for purely pension (ie public purposes). "
Source: www.cij.gov.ar
0 comments:
Post a Comment