Reading Time: 3 minutes
A recent decision by the Council of Social Security Appeals (CRPS) has brought significant relief to INSS insured parties, reaffirming the right to the most advantageous retirement benefit. This emblematic case not only guaranteed the granting of a retirement benefit based on contribution time under more favorable conditions but also solidified crucial understandings regarding the timeliness of appeals, the reaffirmation of the Filing Date (DER), and the application of the complex transition rules of the Social Security Reform.
Timeliness of Appeals: The Importance of Formal Notification
Before delving into the merits of the issue, the CRPS addressed a procedural point of extreme relevance: the timeliness of the appeal. The decision highlighted that the appeal was considered within the legal deadline due to the absence of a record of formal notification of the previous decision in the records. According to Articles 77 to 80 of the CRPS Internal Regulations (Ordinance MPS nº 125/2026), the counting of the deadline to appeal only begins after proof that the insured party was officially notified. This understanding protects the right to full defense and ensures that no insured party is prejudiced by failures in procedural communication.
“Without proof that the insured party was officially notified, the deadline to appeal does not begin to count, guaranteeing the right to full defense.” [1]
The Rules of Retirement Based on Contribution Time: Before and After the Reform
The decision serves as an important reminder of the changes brought about by the Social Security Reform (Constitutional Amendment nº 103/2019). Before the reform, retirement based on contribution time required 35 years of contribution for men and 30 years for women, in addition to a minimum qualifying period of 180 contributions. With the enactment of the Constitutional Amendment, several transition rules were established to protect the rights of those who were already in the labor market but had not yet met all the requirements.
Among the best-known transition rules, the points system, the 50% premium, the 100% premium, and the progressive minimum age stand out. The complexity of these rules often generates doubts and the need for a thorough analysis to identify the most beneficial option for the insured party.
The Specific Case: An Example of Acquired Right
In the case analyzed by the CRPS, the insured party did not meet the requirements for retirement on the date of the reform (11/13/2019), having 31 years, 5 months, and 25 days of contribution. However, on the Filing Date (DER), on 08/07/2025, he had already reached 37 years, 2 months, and 19 days of contribution and 448 months of qualifying period, in addition to totaling 94 points, exceeding the minimum required of 92 points. This scenario demonstrates that the insured party met the requirements for more than one transition rule, which opened the way for the application of the principle of the most advantageous benefit.
The Principle of the Most Advantageous Benefit and the Reaffirmation of the DER
One of the pillars of Social Security Law is the principle of the most advantageous benefit, which ensures the insured party the right to receive the retirement that is most favorable to them, provided that the legal requirements are met. The CRPS decision reinforces this principle, highlighting that, even if the insured party has not met the requirements on the initial date of the request, it is possible to reaffirm the DER for a later date, if this results in a higher benefit.
The reaffirmation of the DER is a powerful tool that allows the INSS and the Judiciary to consider the contribution time and conditions of the insured party up to the moment of the analysis of the process, and not only on the date of the initial request. This prevents the insured party from having to file a new request, speeding up the granting of the benefit and guaranteeing the protection of their rights.
Rejection of Restrictive Rules and the Granting of the Benefit
Another relevant point of the decision was the rejection of the application of § 4 of art. 347 of Decree nº 3.048/99. This provision restricts the presentation of new documents in the appeal phase. However, the CRPS understood that, as all the necessary documents were already present in the process from the beginning, and the appeal aimed only at the correct analysis of what already existed, the restrictive rule did not apply. This interpretation ensures that the search for the most advantageous benefit is not hindered by excessive formalities when the documentation is already sufficient.
In view of all the elements, the CRPS decided to acknowledge the appeal, grant it, and determine the granting of the most advantageous retirement benefit based on contribution time to the insured party (Administrative Process: 44233.233499/2025-38). This decision represents a victory for the insured parties and an important precedent for Social Security Law.
Implications for Insured Parties and the Future of Social Security Law
This decision reinforces the need for insured parties to seek specialized guidance to analyze their contribution history and identify the best strategy for granting their retirement. The complexity of social security rules, especially after the Reform, requires professional monitoring to ensure that all rights are exercised and that the most advantageous benefit is achieved.
The case also signals a trend of the CRPS in prioritizing material justice and the right of the insured party, even in the face of more restrictive interpretations of the legislation. It is an indication that the search for the best retirement is a right that must be defended with rigor and technical knowledge.