巴西最高法取消特殊退休年龄下限，中资企业用工合规成本或面临变数

Leonardo Rolim Edu Andrade/Ascom/ME Brazil’s Supreme Court decision striking down the minimum-age requirement for special retirement benefits for workers exposed to hazardous conditions—a rule introduced under the 2019 pension reform—could increase federal spending by R$7.8 billion between 2026 and 2030, according to estimates from the Social Security Ministry obtained by Valor through a Freedom of Information Act request. Courts deny violating Supreme Court ruling on public-sector pay cap Health workers pension bill could set costly precedent Social security model runs out of steam, calls for new reform Public finance experts say the ruling adds to a series of Supreme Court decisions with unanticipated fiscal consequences for the federal government, increasing uncertainty over budget planning and compliance with Brazil’s fiscal framework. The 2019 pension reform mandated that workers aiming for special retirement benefits must fulfill both a minimum period of exposure to hazardous conditions and reach at least age 55. However, the Supreme Court’s June decision removes the age criterion, leaving only the exposure period—15, 20, or 25 years—based on occupational risk level. Leonardo Rolim, a consultant to the Lower House and former Social Security secretary, said that in the most extreme scenario, an underground miner beginning work at the legal minimum age of 21 could retire at 36 after 15 years of contributions. In more typical jobs requiring at least 25 years of contributions, retirement generally happens in the early 40s. Based on the ministry’s estimates, the fiscal impact will be R$302.2 million in 2026, R$914.2 million in 2027, R$1.54 billion in 2028, R$2.18 billion in 2029, and R$2.84 billion in 2030, totaling R$7.8 billion over five years. The estimates assume that, after the ruling, the number of special retirement approvals will return to pre-2019 constitutional amendment levels, when the pension reform was enacted. The projections also use the current average value of special retirement benefits, hold those amounts constant in real terms from 2026 onward, and incorporate annual demographic growth of about 2.5%. Rolim said the ruling reinstates what he described as an irrational model for special retirement benefits that could distort the system. In his view, the decision sets a precedent that may encourage other professional groups to seek earlier retirement through the courts, contrary to international trends. “While the rest of the world is raising retirement ages because people are living longer, we are moving in the opposite direction,” he said. Although the fiscal impact will be greatest for the federal government, Rolim noted that states and municipalities will also face higher costs because they employ workers eligible for these special retirement rules. He said healthcare professionals—who make up a significant share of state and local government workforces—will be among the primary beneficiaries. Municipal sanitation workers will also be affected. Alexandre de Andrade, head of the Independent Fiscal Institution (IFI), a Senate-affiliated fiscal policy watchdog, said the ministry’s assumption that benefit approvals will return to pre-reform levels is economically sound because the minimum retirement age introduced in 2019 served as a fiscal safeguard. Without that requirement, incentives to claim special retirement benefits once again hinge solely on years of hazardous exposure, “creating a dangerous precedent by allowing a backlog of workers to regain eligibility for early retirement,” he said. He added that combining an annual demographic growth rate of 2.5% with current average benefit levels suggests not only high spending but also a “dangerous” acceleration in expenditures. “At a time when Brazil’s fiscal framework requires strict control of mandatory spending, real growth of this magnitude in a single expenditure category places even greater pressure on budget space for other priorities,” he said. Andrade said that the Supreme Court is effectively establishing a “parallel budget of unforeseen expenses” by making rulings based on social or constitutional principles without sufficiently analyzing their financial impact. He added that this approach gradually erodes the 2019 pension reform and disrupts the federal government’s budget planning, as actuarial risks can escalate suddenly. He cited as another example the Supreme Court’s ruling last year easing eligibility criteria for maternity benefits, a decision estimated to increase federal spending by R$12 billion this year. At the time, then Planning and Budget Minister Simone Tebet said she agreed with the merits of the decision but described its fiscal impact as an unpredictable “meteor” hitting public finances. She also warned against what she called an “overly interventionist judiciary” in social spending matters, arguing that compliance with Brazil’s fiscal framework requires shared responsibility among the three branches of government. Lawyers specializing in pension law, however, welcomed the ruling, emphasizing the protective purpose of special retirement benefits. “The decision represents an important shift in the interpretation of special retirement benefits by recognizing that imposing a minimum retirement age was incompatible with the constitutional purpose of this benefit,” said Fernanda Zucare, a partner at Zucare Advogados Associados. “It made little sense to require workers who had already completed 15, 20, or 25 years of hazardous exposure to remain in unhealthy working conditions simply to meet a minimum age. That undermined the very purpose of the benefit,” she said. Zucare noted that legal uncertainty remains until the court publishes its full written opinion. The expectation is that the decision will clarify when the ruling takes effect and which specific cases it covers. She also noted that the Supreme Court validated other parts of the 2019 pension reform, such as the updated calculation method for special retirement benefits and the ban on converting hazardous-service time into ordinary contribution time after Constitutional Amendment No. 103 of 2019. “This indicates that the court aimed to maintain the pension system’s actuarial balance, invalidating only the provision it deemed incompatible with the constitutional protections for workers’ health,” she added. Guilherme Ghilardi Cavini, a lawyer specializing in labor, union, and executive compensation at Innocenti Advogados Associados, said that the ruling is expected to lead to a substantial rise in administrative claims and lawsuits related to special retirement benefits. “It is common to find workers in manufacturing, mining, healthcare, and other sectors exposed to chemical, physical, or biological hazards who remained on the job even after completing the required exposure period solely to reach the minimum retirement age,” he said.