History Article
Close
This article was published April 30, 2015 at 16:09.
The last change is the April 30, 2015 at 17:16.
The stop to the revaluation of pensions is unconstitutional. The rule that, for 2012 and 2013, has established, “in consideration of contingent financial situation,” that the pension’s amount exceeding three times the minimum INPS (from 1,217 Euros net up) sprang shut the block equalization, ie the mechanism adjusting the pension cost of living, is unconstitutional. This was decided by the Constitutional Court, rejecting the art. 24 of Decree Law 201/2011 regarding the equalization of pensions, contained in the so-called norm Fornero ” Save Italy ”. The impact on the public accounts, estimated by the State when it held a public hearing, would be about 1.8 billion in 2012 and about 3 billion for 2013, a total of almost 5 billion.
Fornero: block equalization was chosen government, not my
The block of equalization for pensions over three times the minimum “was not my choice,” was immediately the former defense minister of labor, Elsa Fornero remembering that it was a decision “around the Government ‘taken to make savings in the short term. “I’m reproached for many things – said Fornero – but that was not my choice, it was the thing that cost me more.” 4 December 2011 Fornero, then Minister of Welfare, could not hold back the tears while on live TV with the team of the Monti government, outlining in detail what and how many sacrifices Italians await the maneuver just launched to release the country from the crisis. It was the word “sacrifice” to hold fast to stuck in the throat, preventing her from continuing the sentence was pronounced on the block of pensions.
View boccia standard Fornero on pensions: worth 5 billion
In its judgment of 70 filed today, which is a speaker Judge Silvana Sciarra, states that ‘the interest of pensioners, especially holders of modest social security issues, is aimed at preserving the purchasing power of the sums received, hence consequentially the right to adequate social security benefit. ” This right, “constitutionally established, is unreasonably sacrificed in the name of financial needs not explained in detail.”
To raise the question of constitutionality had been, with various orders between 2013 and 2014, the Court Palermo, section work; the Court of Auditors, the legal section for the Emilia-Romagna; the Court of Auditors, the legal section for the region Liguria. According to the consultation, the reasons set out at the base of the decree are bland and generic, while the outcome is produced for retirees is heavy. “He must recollect – explains the decision – that, for the manner in which it operates the mechanism of equalization, any loss of purchasing power of the treatment, even if limited to short periods, is, by its nature, ultimately. Subsequent revaluations are, in fact, calculated not on the actual value of the original, but the last nominal amount, that the non-adjustment has already been affected. ”
Having overcome the limits of reasonableness and proportionality
“The complaint relating to paragraph 25 of Article. 24 of Law Decree n. 201 of 2011, if examined under the profiles of the proportionality and adequacy of the pension – says the ruling – suggests that they have been validated the limits of reasonableness and proportionality, which caused injury to the purchasing power of the treatment itself and irremediable nullification of the legitimate expectations nurtured by the employee for the time after the termination of their activities. ” “It is, therefore, affected the fundamental rights related to social security relationship, based on unequivocal constitutional principles: the proportionality of the retirement benefits, understood as deferred compensation (Art. 36 Constitution) and adequacy (art. 38). The latter is to be understood as an expression of some, though not explicit, the principle of solidarity “(Art. 2) and” at the same time implementation of the principle of equality “(art. 3).
© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Permalink
No comments:
Post a Comment