INSS: TRABALHOU ANTES DE 1994❓ VEJA DECISÃO DO TEMA 1102 DO STF

This document is a court decision from the Federal Regional Court of the 2nd Region analyzing an appeal against a judgment that dismissed the plaintiff's request for recalculation of retirement benefits, considering the transitional rules and the possibility of a lifetime review, in light of decisions by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the subject. Context and Justification: The plaintiff sought a review of the initial monthly income (RMI) of their retirement benefit based on length of service, so that the calculation would be based on the definitive rule of Article 29, I, of Law No. 8.213/91, which takes into account the 80% highest contribution salaries, including those prior to July 1994, arguing that this rule would be more advantageous than the transitional rule provided for in Law No. 9.876/99. The first instance judgment dismissed the request, based on the constitutionality of Article 29, I, of Law No. 8.213/91. Article 3 of Law No. 9,876/99, which prevents the option for more favorable rules, and the Supreme Federal Court's decision declaring the constitutionality of this rule, binding all bodies of the Judiciary. The author appeals, alleging that the Supreme Federal Court's decision on Topic 1102, which deals with the "life-long review," is suspended due to pending appeals and lawsuits, and that the judgment on the merits of ADIs 2110 and 2111, which discuss the constitutionality of calculation rules, was superseded by a 2024 Supreme Federal Court decision, allowing the topic to be revisited. Decisions and Jurisprudence The court highlights that, after the judgment of ADIs 2110 and 2111 in 2024, the Supreme Federal Court declared the constitutionality of article 3 of Law No. 9,876/99. Article 3 of Law No. 9,876/99 imposes mandatory compliance with this rule, which prevents the selection of rules more favorable to the insured. The Supreme Court's decision, with binding effect and erga omnes effect, consolidated that the insured cannot choose to apply the definitive rule of Article 3. 29, I, of Law No. 8.213/91, regardless of whether it is more advantageous. The court reinforces that all pending cases discussing the lifetime review, including lawsuits, must follow this guidance, and that the final decision of the STF prevents the granting of a review based on the previous more favorable rule. Furthermore, the judgment of the ADIs confirmed the constitutionality of the legal provision, and the modulation of effects established that amounts received until 5/4/2024 cannot be reversed or questioned, and that there is no possibility of charging fees or costs related to pending lifetime review actions. Conclusion In view of the understanding of the STF, which bound all judicial bodies, the court denies the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the judgment of dismissal. The decision reinforces that the insured cannot opt ​​for more favorable rules prior to the entry into force of the rule, and that the effects of this decision are binding and final, with the consequent return of the case file to the court of first instance. In summary, the document confirms the impossibility of reviewing the benefit based on the lifetime rule, due to the Supreme Federal Court's decision declaring the constitutionality of Article 3 of Law No. 9,876/99, imposing mandatory compliance with this rule and consolidating the jurisprudence on the subject.