Government Wants to Charge Lawsuits for Losing Lawsuit Against INSS : Social Security Experts criticize the bill aimed at keeping people from demanding a claim in court. For the IBDP, the responsibility lies with the government that has rejected the claims of policyholders.
Government Wants to Charge Costs of Lawsuit of Those Losing Cause Against INSS
The President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. He made the announcement that he will send to the National Congress a Bill (PL) to collect the expenses of the lawsuits of workers who lose lawsuits against the National Institute of Social Security – INSS.
Only workers who earn up to three minimum wages (R $ 2,994.00) will be exempt from the charge.
Government’s claim
The government claims that the goal is to reduce the number of lawsuits – about 15% of the benefits paid by the INSS were obtained through court.
The President of the Brazilian Institute of Social Security Law – IBDP , specialist in social security law at advocada Adriane Bramante , and also the director of the entity, Diego Cherulli, criticize the project and claim that the judicialization has only happened because the government has decreased the number benefits granted.
Professor Adriane Bramante, specialist in social security law and author of several books on special retirement and other benefits of INSS
“There are too many rejected requests not because the requester is wrong, but because the government machine is inefficient. Just to give you an example, the number of denied benefits for rural people has doubled from 30% to 60%, ”says Bramante.
Adriane Bramante
According to Diego Cherulli.
The laws that the government proposes and are being approved by the National Congress, such as Pension Reform.
Which leave legal loopholes for people to seek their rights in court.
Contribute to judicialization.
“The government continually invents reforms and modifies INSS procedures, causing conflicts, and defining a situation that would be merely administrative ends in court.”
Diego C.
The government confuses the establishment of a financial-monetary criterion with free access to justice, says Diego, who argues that
“each case should be analyzed in a particular way as it is today”.
Confusion of Establishment
For attorney, when the government proposes to prevent access to justice commits double punishment to the insured.
“The first punishment is for his misreading of citizen rights and the second for restricting and trying to prevent him from seeking the judiciary,” says Cherulli.
“This bill will end up generating unconstitutionality”, is what reinforces the president of IBDP, Professor Adriane Bramante.
President IBDP – Adriane Bramante
And she continues with her line of reasoning, because for her, the government is also not taking into account that it is a citizen’s right to have free justice, when the person informs that he can not afford the costs of the process.
Moreover, limiting gratuity to those who receive three minimum wages does not solve the problem of judicialization. The lawyer understands that the ceiling stipulated by the government is very low, not even the ceiling of the INSS (R $ 5,839.45).
“If a worker earning $ 3,100 cannot receive health insurance, and the company does not take it back on the grounds that he is unable to return to work, it is It is his right to have a free justice. These people are so vulnerable that they cannot afford the costs of the action, ”he says.
Government Does Not Respect Separation of Powers
For IBDP director Diego Cherulli, it is worrying that the government is not clear about the separation of powers, as it is interfering with court decisions that were once favorable to INSS policyholders.
“Laws are being made to resolve lawsuits in favor of public administration.