Mota

Category: Sem categoria

  • Chamber Maintains Retroactive Payments for Fishing Ban Insurance: Understand Fishermen’s Rights in 2026

    Chamber Maintains Retroactive Payments for Fishing Ban Insurance: Understand Fishermen’s Rights in 2026

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    In a decision of great impact for the national fishing sector, the Chamber of Deputies approved the maintenance of retroactive payments for fishing ban insurance, overturning the changes previously suggested by the Federal Senate. The measure ensures that artisanal fishermen maintain the right to claim amounts related to past periods, consolidating fundamental rules for the subsistence of these workers during the months when commercial fishing is prohibited.

    What is Fishing Ban Insurance and its Legal Relevance

    Fishing ban insurance, formally known as Artisanal Fisherman’s Unemployment Insurance (SDPA), is a social security benefit of an assistance nature, equivalent to a monthly minimum wage. It is paid during the “fishing ban” period, which comprises the months when fishing for certain species is prohibited to ensure reproduction and environmental sustainability.

    For the year 2026, with the minimum wage set at R$ 1,621, the benefit acts as an essential safety net. Legally, the insurance seeks to compensate for the temporary loss of income for workers who live exclusively from artisanal fishing, guaranteeing human dignity and ecological balance, both precepts protected by the Federal Constitution.

    The Legislative Dispute: Chamber vs. Senate

    The processing of the Provisional Measure (MP) that regulates the benefit was marked by intense debates between the two houses of the National Congress. While the Federal Senate sought to restrict certain points to contain the advance of public spending, the Chamber of Deputies, under the leadership of rapporteur Senator Beto Faro (PT-PA) in the special committee, defended flexibility and broader access.

    The Issue of Retroactive Payments

    The most controversial point was the maintenance of retroactive payments. The Senate had voted to exclude this possibility, aiming to limit the immediate fiscal impact. However, the deputies decided to reinstate the original text of the committee, ensuring that fishermen who did not make the request in previous years, but who demonstrably had the right, can request it now.

    “The maintenance of retroactives is a victory for the legal certainty of the artisanal fisherman, who often faces bureaucratic and geographical barriers to access their rights at the exact time of the prohibition.”

    New Registration and Inspection Rules

    In addition to the overdue amounts, the Chamber consolidated other operational rules that directly impact the beneficiary’s daily life:

    • Biometrics and CadÚnico: Biometric registration and registration in the Cadastro Único (CadÚnico) are required. However, it was defined that the income considered in CadÚnico will not be used to limit access to fishing ban insurance, with the specific nature of fishing activity prevailing.

    • Fiscal Documentation: The Chamber overturned the temporal requirement for sending documents. Previously, the government wanted proof of sale of fish for at least six months in the twelve months prior to the fishing ban. Now, only documentation is required, without this rigid time frame.

    • Digital Identification: The authentication system may be mediated by qualified public servants or accredited fishing representative entities, facilitating access for workers with technological difficulties.

    Budgetary Impact and Spending Limit

    To balance public accounts, the approved text establishes a spending ceiling for the year 2026. The total expenditure of the Union with fishing ban insurance cannot exceed the amount of R$ 7.9 billion. It is important to note that this ceiling refers to payments for the current fiscal year, not including the provisions for retroactive payments resumed by the deputies.

    The concern of the opposition in the Senate lies precisely in the possibility of fraud. It is argued that allowing representative entities to manage registrations and that retroactive payments are made without precise estimates may destabilize the public budget earmarked for fishing.

    Next Steps and Final Considerations

    With the approval in the Chamber, the bill for conversion goes to the President of the Republic for sanction. If sanctioned without vetoes, the new rules come into effect immediately, allowing thousands of fishermen to regularize their situation before the Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture and the Ministry of Labor and Employment.

    For the artisanal fisherman, the moment is to pay attention to the documentation. The requirement of biometrics and the update in CadÚnico become indispensable. It is recommended that workers seek their colonies or specialized legal advice to ensure that the retroactive request, if applicable, is properly instructed with the necessary proofs of professional activity.

    In conclusion, the Chamber’s decision prioritizes the social protection of the fisherman to the detriment of an immediate fiscal restriction, recognizing the historical difficulties of access of this public to public assistance and social security policies.

  • STF suspends proceedings on equal contribution time for men and women in supplementary pension plans

    STF suspends proceedings on equal contribution time for men and women in supplementary pension plans

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    The Federal Supreme Court (STF) has just ordered the national suspension of all proceedings discussing the legality of clauses in supplementary pension plans that establish the same contribution time for men and women. The decision, which occurs under the general repercussion procedure, highlights the conflict between formal equality and material justice in the Brazilian private pension system.

    The Decisive Framework: General Repercussion Theme 1.423

    The decision was consolidated in the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal (RE) No. 1,415,115. By recognizing the existence of general repercussion to the matter, now cataloged as Theme 1.423, the STF signals that the resolution of this conflict will not only impact the parties involved in the original process, but thousands of pension fund beneficiaries across the country.

    The rapporteur of the case, Minister Alexandre de Moraes, emphasized the need to halt the ongoing actions in the lower courts. This national suspension is a strategic procedural tool to prevent different courts from issuing conflicting decisions, which could generate extreme legal uncertainty for supplementary pension entities and their participants.

    The Controversy: Equality of Time vs. Social Reality

    The core of the dispute lies in pension fund regulations that require 30 years of full contribution for both men and women. The plaintiffs argue that applying a “one-size-fits-all” rule for both genders ignores the historical and structural disparities of Brazilian society.

    Historically, the General Social Security Regime (RGPS/INSS) and the Special Regime (RPPS) adopt differentiated criteria. This differentiation is based on widely documented sociological and economic assumptions:

    • Double workload: The recognition that women still assume the greater burden of domestic and family care.

    • Wage inequality: IBGE data proving that women, on average, earn less than men in the same roles.

    • Barriers in the labor market: The penalization of maternity in career progression.

    The Logic of Distortion in Supplementary Plans

    One of the most sensitive points of the discussion refers to the nature of “supplementation”. If women retire with reduced time in the INSS, but the supplementary plan requires 30 years for the maximum benefit, there is a financial mismatch. Many women have to choose between continuing to work only to reach the private pension goal or retiring through the INSS and receiving a reduced (proportional) supplementary allowance.

    “The application of an identical contribution time criterion in supplementary systems can, paradoxically, deepen the inequality that the public pension system tries to mitigate, punishing women for a rule that does not observe their structural vulnerability.”

    Formal Equality vs. Material Equality

    The judgment in the STF should revisit fundamental concepts of Constitutional Law:

    1. Formal Equality

    From this perspective, everyone is equal before the law and should be subject to the same rules. Supplementary pension entities often argue that, because they are voluntary and based on rigorous actuarial calculations, they should not suffer the same interference from social policies as the public regime.

    2. Material (Substantial) Equality

    This concept argues that the Law must treat the unequal to the extent of their inequality. Treating people who face different realities in the labor market in the same way would, ultimately, consolidate an injustice.

    Actuarial and Financial Impacts

    Private pension entities express concern about the actuarial balance of the plans. If the STF decides that the contribution time for women should be less, the calculations of mathematical reserves and monthly contributions may need to be revised. This could increase the cost of the plans or require extraordinary contributions from sponsors and participants.

    On the other hand, participants argue that the financial sustainability of the fund cannot be maintained at the expense of violating fundamental rights and constitutional principles of equality.

    What to expect for the future of the proceedings?

    With the national suspension in effect, all proceedings in the Brazilian Judiciary on this issue will be halted until the STF Plenary issues a final decision. There is no exact date for this judgment, but given the nature of the general repercussion, the fixed thesis must be followed by all judges and courts in the country.

    Conclusion

    The outcome of Theme 1.423 will be a watershed for Brazilian Pension Law. It will define whether the autonomy of closed supplementary pension entities has limits before the principle of gender equality. While we await the decision, the recommendation for beneficiaries and lawyers is to rigorously monitor the procedural updates, as any retroactive or modulated decision may drastically alter the retirement planning of thousands of Brazilian women.

  • Federal Government Must Initiate Administrative Proceeding to Settle Debt with Judicial Credit

    Federal Government Must Initiate Administrative Proceeding to Settle Debt with Judicial Credit

    Reading Time: 3 minutesReading Time: 3 minutes

    The Federal Court of Presidente Prudente issued a landmark decision reinforcing the right of taxpayers to use judicial credits, with res judicata, to settle tax debts installment payments with the Federal Government. The ruling obligates the public administration to initiate the necessary administrative procedure for the so-called “offsetting of accounts,” a mechanism guaranteed by the Federal Constitution that often faces resistance or omission by the tax authorities.

    The Constitutional Basis for Offsetting Accounts

    The legal basis for using judicial credits to settle debts with the Public Treasury is firmly anchored in the Federal Constitution. Article 100, §11, introduced by recent constitutional amendments, clearly establishes the subjective right of the creditor to use amounts owed to them by the public entity to amortize or liquidate their own tax debts.

    This provision aims to give effect to the principle of morality and administrative efficiency, preventing the taxpayer from being forced to continue disbursing funds to pay the State while the same State owes them amounts already recognized judicially. In the case in question, it is a direct application of the constitutional norm to guarantee balance in the relationship between the tax authorities and the taxpayer.

    The Federal Government’s Inertia and the Recognition of Illegality

    In the process under analysis, the plaintiff company possessed judicial credits arising from an action with res judicata and sought to use them to settle an active tax installment payment exceeding R$ 200,000. However, despite the administrative request filed, the Federal Government remained inert, failing to initiate the technical analysis procedure provided for in the legislation.

    Judge Newton José Falcão, of the 2nd Federal Court of Presidente Prudente, emphasized that the administrative omission has no legal basis. According to the judge, the existence of decrees and ordinances regulating the matter removes any argument of a “normative vacuum” that the Federal Government could allege to avoid proceeding with the compensation.

    “The constitutional provision expressly enshrines the subjective right of the creditor of a judicial credit with res judicata to use it, through offsetting of accounts, to settle debts installment payments with the Public Treasury.”

    Risk of Damage and the Need for Preliminary Injunction

    One of the crucial points of the decision was the recognition of periculum in mora (danger in delay). The judge pointed out that the maintenance of monthly charges forced the company to an unnecessary patrimonial disbursement, since it holds sufficient credits for the total liquidation of the debt.

    To justify the granting of the preliminary injunction, the following factors were considered:

    • Undue Disbursement: Each installment paid under resistance represents an immediate loss of liquidity for the company.
    • Guarantee of the Court: The company presented surety bonds in an amount greater than the debt, ensuring that the public treasury would not suffer losses if the decision were reversed.
    • Difficulty of Reversal: Amounts paid to the tax authorities are difficult to recover immediately, often requiring new writs of payment.

    Implications of the Decision for the Taxpayer

    The judicial decision not only orders the opening of the administrative process, but imposes coercive measures to ensure the practical result of the right. Among the determinations imposed on the Federal Government, the following stand out:

    1. 15-day Deadline: For the effective initiation of the administrative process of offsetting accounts.
    2. Suspension of Enforceability: The installments of the tax debt are suspended for the duration of the administrative analysis.
    3. Positive Certificate with Negative Effect (CPEN): Authorization for the issuance of the document, allowing the company to continue participating in bids and contracts.
    4. Daily Fine: Setting of astreintes in the amount of R$ 500.00 in case of non-compliance with judicial orders.

    Conclusion and Legal Relevance

    This case serves as an important precedent for companies that find themselves in a similar situation. The use of writ of payment credits or judgments with res judicata to offset tax debts is a legitimate fiscal liability management strategy and now strengthened by judicial understanding.

    It is essential that the taxpayer be advised by qualified professionals to identify the liquidity and certainty of these credits, as well as to manage the appropriate legal remedies in the face of eventual inertia of the public administration. Justice reaffirms that the State cannot fail to fulfill its constitutional obligations under the pretext of administrative convenience.

  • Geap Complies with Court Order and Issues New Bills with Corrected Values for Servers

    Geap Complies with Court Order and Issues New Bills with Corrected Values for Servers

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    In a significant legal victory for public servants, Geap Autogestão em Saúde has begun sending out new bank slips with corrected values, in strict compliance with a court order. This measure benefits thousands of servers who were surprised by a duplicated charge, known as the “second readjustment,” applied irregularly after the already planned annual increase.

    Understanding the Case: The “Second Readjustment” by Geap

    The controversy surrounding Geap’s monthly fees gained momentum in mid-2025. After the application of the regular annual readjustment, the self-management operator implemented a second increase in values in June of the same year. This practice was promptly questioned by class entities, led by the National Federation of Unions of Workers in Health, Labor, Social Security and Social Assistance (Fenasps), which alleged the illegality and abusive nature of the cumulative charge.

    The court, when analyzing the request, granted an injunction through the Court of Justice of the Federal District (TJDF), suspending the effects of the internal resolution that authorized this additional increase. With the decision, the values must return to the levels established by Resolution nº 913/2025, which provides only for the ordinary annual readjustment according to the plan and the beneficiary’s age group.

    New Bills and Payment Deadlines

    Federal public servers linked to Geap began receiving the updated collection documents in the first week of April. It is essential that the beneficiary pays attention to the operator’s official communication channels to ensure access to the correct bill.

    • Due Date: The deadline for payment of the new bills was set for April 15, 2026.

    • Content: The value must be free from the portion referring to the “second readjustment.”

    • Issuance: If the physical bill does not arrive on time, the recommendation is to use the beneficiary portal or the official Geap application.

    The Return of Improperly Charged Amounts

    One of the most sensitive points of the judicial decision concerns the amounts that have already been paid by servers in previous months under the validity of the suspended readjustment. According to information from Fenasps, Geap has committed to refunding these amounts in April.

    The restitution will be operationalized in two main ways, depending on the payment method used by the server:

    1. Payroll Deduction (Consignment)

    For servers who have direct deductions from their paychecks, Geap has informed that it will correct the values at the time of sending the information to the Federal Government’s payroll. The excess amounts previously charged must be credited directly to the beneficiary’s current account.

    2. Payment via Bank Slip

    Those who make payments via bank slip and have already paid installments with the undue readjustment must monitor their payment statements. The operator must carry out the reconciliation of accounts or the specific reimbursement, as agreed with the union entities.

    “The suspension of this abusive readjustment is essential to preserve the purchasing power of the server and ensure that access to health does not become an unpayable burden in the face of the category’s salary lag.”

    What to Do in Case of Doubts or Errors?

    Despite the issuance of the new bills, Fenasps warns that occasional inconsistencies may occur, such as differences in values between servers of the same age group and with the same plan. To resolve these pending issues, the server must act proactively.

    It is recommended that the active, retired or pensioned server who identifies errors in the billing gathers the following documentation:

    1. Copy of the bill or proof of payment for the month of March (containing the error);

    2. Copy of the new bill received in April;

    3. Recent pay stubs indicating the health plan item.

    These documents must be sent to the state union of the category or directly to Fenasps. The federation is consolidating these cases to report directly to the operator and monitor full compliance with the court order.

    Future Perspectives: Dialogue with the Government

    In addition to the legal dispute, the representative entities are seeking a political and administrative solution to prevent episodes of unexpected charges from recurring. A request has been filed with the Ministry of Management and Innovation in Public Services (MGI) for direct participation of unions in the negotiation process for agreements and adjustments of health plans.

    The objective is to guarantee greater transparency in Geap’s decisions, since it is a self-management operator whose main maintainers are the servers themselves and the Federal Government. The democratization of decisions on cost-sharing is seen by the entities as the only way to sustain the plan without harming the budget of workers’ families.

    Conclusion

    The issuance of the rectified bills represents a significant advance, but continuous monitoring is essential. Servers must carefully check their values and not hesitate to seek legal or union support if the injunction is not being applied correctly in their individual case.

  • Selective Tax and ICMS: Analysis of the Unconstitutional Cascade Incidence in the Tax Reform

    Selective Tax and ICMS: Analysis of the Unconstitutional Cascade Incidence in the Tax Reform

    Reading Time: 4 minutesReading Time: 4 minutes

    Selective Tax and ICMS: Analysis of the Unconstitutional Cascade Incidence in the Tax Reform

    The recent Tax Reform, through Constitutional Amendment (EC) No. 132/2023, introduced the Selective Tax (IS) into the Brazilian fiscal scenario. The original proposal for this new tax, popularly known as the “sin tax,” was to discourage the consumption of goods and services considered harmful to health or the environment, with the aim of mitigating so-called negative externalities. However, a more in-depth analysis of its structure reveals a potential problem of unconstitutionality: the possible cascade incidence of the Selective Tax on the calculation basis of the Tax on Operations related to the Circulation of Goods and on the Provision of Interstate and Intermunicipal Transportation and Communication Services (ICMS). This interaction raises serious concerns regarding the tax burden, the complexity of the system, and the violation of fundamental constitutional principles.

    The Purpose of the Selective Tax in the Tax Reform

    The Selective Tax was conceived as an instrument of fiscal policy to intervene in consumer behavior, directing it towards healthier and more sustainable choices. That is, it aims to:

    • Discourage consumption: Raise the final price of products such as cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and other items that generate social or environmental costs, reducing their demand.
    • Mitigation of Negative Externalities: Negative externalities are costs generated by the production or consumption of a good that are not internalized in its price, being borne by society (e.g., pollution, public health expenses resulting from smoking). The IS seeks, in theory, to compensate for these costs.
    • Collection: Although its main focus is regulatory, the IS also generates revenue for the State.

    The Tax Reform, which brought significant changes to the system of taxes on consumption, seeks to simplify and rationalize taxation in Brazil. However, the way the Selective Tax may interact with the ICMS threatens one of the pillars of this reform: the search for a simpler and more transparent system.

    The Question of Cascade Incidence and Unconstitutionality

    The central concern lies in the possibility of the value of the Selective Tax being included in the calculation basis of the ICMS. If this occurs, we will be facing an undesirable cascade incidence, that is, the taxation of one tax on another, generating a multiplier effect on the final price of products.

    What is Cascade Incidence?

    Cascade incidence occurs when a tax is calculated on a basis that already includes the value of another tax. In the context of the IS and ICMS, it would mean that the ICMS, which is a tax on value added, would be charged not only on the value of the product itself, but also on the value of the IS already embedded in it. This mechanism distorts relative prices, disproportionately burdens the final consumer, and goes against the principles of non-cumulativeness and ability to pay.

    Precedents and Constitutional Guarantees

    Brazilian jurisprudence, especially that of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), has already consolidated the understanding that the inclusion of the ICMS in the calculation basis of the IPI is not permitted, nor is the inclusion of the IPI in the calculation basis of the ICMS. These decisions were fundamental to avoid double taxation and cumulativeness that so penalized the economy and taxpayers. The main arguments that support this prohibition are:

    • Nature of Taxes: The ICMS is a tax on the consumption of goods and services, while the IPI (and, by analogy, the Selective Tax) has an extra-fiscal character, seeking to influence behaviors. The calculation basis of each must reflect this nature.
    • Non-cumulativeness: The principle of non-cumulativeness (provided for the ICMS and IPI) aims to prevent taxes from being charged multiple times in the production chain. The cascade incidence of the IS on the ICMS would violate this principle.
    • Ability to Pay: Excessive taxation, resulting from the cascade, can violate the principle of ability to pay, causing the taxpayer to bear a disproportionate fiscal burden.

    The STF’s decision in Theme 69 of General Repercussion, which determined the exclusion of the ICMS from the calculation basis of the PIS/Cofins, reinforced the interpretation that the value of the tax cannot serve as a basis for another tax, unless there is an express constitutional provision and tax logic that justifies it, which does not seem to be the case for the Selective Tax in the ICMS.

    The Impacts of Cascade Incidence

    The implementation of the cascade incidence of the IS on the ICMS would bring significant negative consequences:

    • Increase in the Tax Burden: The final price of products burdened by the IS would be even higher, harming the consumer’s purchasing power.
    • Economic Distortion: It would increase the disproportion in the prices of goods and services, affecting the competitiveness of companies and the efficient allocation of resources in the economy.
    • Complexity and Litigation: The inclusion of the IS in the ICMS basis would add a layer of complexity to the already intricate Brazilian tax system, generating legal uncertainties and, inevitably, an exponential increase in litigation between taxpayers and the tax authorities.
    • Distortion of Purpose: Instead of mitigating externalities, cascade taxation would end up creating new distortions, compromising one of the primary objectives of the Tax Reform: the search for a simpler and more transparent system.

    Solutions to Avoid Unconstitutionality

    To avoid the unconstitutionality and the harmful effects of cascade incidence, it is crucial that infra-constitutional legislation and the interpretation of the rules clearly provide for the exclusion of the Selective Tax from the calculation basis of the ICMS. Some approaches to this include:

    • Clear Legislation: The complementary laws that will regulate the Selective Tax and the ICMS must expressly establish that the IS does not form part of the calculation basis of the ICMS.
    • Constitutional Interpretation: The interpretation of the rules must be guided by the constitutional principles of non-cumulativeness, ability to pay, and the objective of simplifying the Tax Reform.
    • Analogy with the IPI: Using the analogy with the IPI, which is a tax with an extra-fiscal character similar to the IS, and the consolidated understanding of the STF on the mutual exclusion of bases, can be a robust legal path.

    The Search for an Efficient and Fair Tax System

    The Tax Reform in Brazil is an important step to modernize the fiscal system, making it more efficient and fair. However, the implementation of the Selective Tax, if not carefully planned to avoid cascade incidence on the ICMS, can generate more problems than solutions.

    It is essential that legislators and tax authorities act in a way that ensures that the Selective Tax fulfills its regulatory role without generating undue distortions and additional burdens. Transparency, simplicity, and non-cumulativeness must be the pillars that guide the detailed regulation of these taxes, ensuring that the Brazilian tax system does not become even more complex and litigious.

    The legal and business community will be attentive to the developments in the regulation of the Selective Tax, seeking to ensure that constitutional principles are respected and that the reform fully achieves its objectives, without creating new obstacles to the country’s economic development.

  • STF postpones ‘perks’ trial to March 25: understand the questioned benefits

    STF postpones ‘perks’ trial to March 25: understand the questioned benefits

    Reading Time: 5 minutes

    Trial of ‘Perks’ in the STF: Remuneration above the Constitutional Ceiling in Focus

    The Supreme Federal Court (STF) is preparing for a trial of great relevance that promises to significantly impact the payroll of the public service, especially in the Judiciary. Scheduled for March 25, the STF Plenary will resume the analysis of injunctions granted by ministers Flávio Dino and Gilmar Mendes, which suspended the application of new rules that prevented the payment of certain allowances, popularly known as ‘perks’, above the remuneration ceiling established by the Constitution.

    The central discussion revolves around the constitutionality of various benefits and bonuses that are currently paid to magistrates and other high-ranking public servants without being accounted for in the remuneration limit. The ceiling, currently at R$ 44,008.52 (the remuneration of an STF minister), aims to curb super-salaries and ensure equity in the public service. However, the way certain allowances are classified and paid has allowed many to receive amounts well above this limit.

    This article details what is at stake, explaining the history of this issue and presenting five notable examples of ‘perks’ that generate controversy and whose future rules will be defined by this crucial decision.

    The Context of the Trial: Remuneration Ceiling and the Injunctions

    The Federal Constitution of 1988 established the remuneration ceiling as a fundamental principle of public administration, seeking to guarantee the morality and economy of public spending. However, over the years, various interpretations and scattered legislations have allowed the creation of allowances that are not subject to this ceiling, emptying, to some extent, its effectiveness.

    The issue gained new contours with the entry into force of resolutions and administrative decisions that attempted to discipline the theme. More recently, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) and the National Council of the Public Prosecutor’s Office (CNMP) approved regulations that, theoretically, would seek to limit these amounts. However, the minister of the STF, Flávio Dino, when granting an injunction, suspended the application of one of these resolutions of the CNJ, which altered the way allowances and benefits were calculated, and which would include certain payments in the ceiling.

    Similarly, minister Gilmar Mendes granted another injunction in a separate action, related to magistrates, addressing the same issue. The expectation is that the trial scheduled for March 25 will unify the Supreme Court’s understanding of the concept. This trial is highly anticipated, as it may put an end to a series of questions and standardize the jurisprudence on what can or cannot exceed the ceiling.

    The Main ‘Perks’ Under Discussion

    The ‘perks’ are, in essence, additions and benefits that are not considered part of the basic remuneration, which allows them, in practice, to exceed the constitutional ceiling. Below, we present five of the most debated, exemplifying the complexity and controversy surrounding these allowances:

    1. Housing Allowance: The Benefit of the Past

    The housing allowance, perhaps the best known of the ‘perks’, aimed to subsidize housing expenses of judges and prosecutors in locations where no functional property was available. Although it was extinguished in 2018 for the vast majority of magistrates, after an agreement that granted a salary readjustment, it reappears intermittently in debates and discussions about abusive advantages. Its presence in the current debate is more a reflection of recent memory than an actively paid allowance above the ceiling currently for the majority. Its discussion, however, is a milestone in the history of the attempt to control the ‘perks’.

    2. Premium License in Cash: Unused Vacation with Free Ceiling

    The premium license, a benefit granted to public servants who accumulate certain periods of service without absences, can be converted into money (cash) upon retirement or leaving the position. It turns out that, like the housing allowance, the premium license converted into cash has long not been counted in the remuneration ceiling. The heart of the matter is whether this allowance, which can represent substantial amounts, should or should not be subject to the constitutional limit. Its exclusion from the ceiling raises the earnings of public servants who opt for this modality upon retirement.

    3. Pecuniary Bonus for Unused Vacation: Another Benefit Above the Ceiling

    Similar to the premium license, the pecuniary bonus for unused vacation allows public servants — especially those with extremely tight schedules, such as judges and prosecutors — to receive in money the amount corresponding to the days of vacation they could not enjoy. This allowance, like the premium license in cash, has also been paid without the incidence of the remuneration ceiling. Proponents of its inclusion in the ceiling argue that this would avoid the excessive accumulation of vacation and promote compliance with the salary limit.

    4. Food Allowance and Health Allowance: Allowances of an Indemnifying Nature?

    The food allowance and the health allowance are considered allowances of an indemnifying nature in the various spheres of the public service, including the Judiciary and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. That is, they aim to reimburse the public servant for expenses they would have due to the exercise of their functions. The majority argument is that, because they are indemnifying, these allowances should not make up the remuneration ceiling. However, the discussion in the STF resides in delimiting to what extent this indemnifying nature is maintained and whether the amounts paid are compatible with the objective, preventing them from becoming a disguised form of extra remuneration without the incidence of the ceiling. The maintenance or inclusion in the ceiling of these benefits has a direct impact on the purchasing power and the net remuneration of public servants.

    5. Overdue Allowances: A Broad Interpretation of Indemnification

    This is one of the most controversial ‘perks’ and which, in many situations, involves the largest amounts. It refers to retroactive payments, resulting from judicial or administrative decisions that recognized the right to an amount that was not paid at the right time. Frequently, these accumulated allowances (overdue) are considered of an indemnifying nature and, therefore, excluded from the ceiling. Critics argue that this interpretation allows public servants to receive exorbitant amounts in a single month, completely distorting the spirit of the remuneration ceiling. The trial of the STF can bring clarity on how to treat these past allowances and whether they should, or should not, have their values limited by the ceiling at the time of payment.

    The Impact of the Trial

    The decision of the STF on the ‘perks’ will have a comprehensive impact. A possible inclusion of these allowances in the ceiling could generate significant savings for public coffers and reinforce the principle of administrative morality. On the other hand, maintaining the exclusion of these allowances from the ceiling would continue to allow several public servants to receive salaries that considerably exceed the constitutional limit, generating criticism about privileges and inequality within the public service.

    In addition to the financial aspect, the trial is also crucial for legal certainty and for society’s perception of the performance of the Judiciary itself. The clear definition of what is or is not subject to the ceiling is fundamental to guarantee the transparency and legitimacy of the remuneration of public agents.

    Expectations and Future

    The expectation is that the STF will establish more rigorous criteria for defining what constitutes an allowance of an indemnifying nature and, therefore, excluded from the ceiling. It is likely that the Court will seek a balance, recognizing the specific nature of some allowances, but curbing abuses and broad interpretations that distort the constitutional ceiling. The decision may generate intense debates and even new legal actions, but it is a fundamental step to standardize the understanding of remuneration in the Brazilian public service.

    Society and legal operators await with attention the outcome of this trial, which will not only define the future of the ‘perks’, but will also reaffirm the State’s commitment to fiscal responsibility and equity in the public service.