The Federal Chamber of Appeals of Salta declared Law 27,609 unconstitutional, which established the retirement mobility formula implemented during the government of Alberto Fernández. The resolution occurred within the framework of the “Palavecino, José Rubén c/ Anses s/ several readjustments”, in which it was determined that the application of that formula between 2021 and 2023 generated a substantial loss of purchasing power for the retiree of the National Public Administration.
According to the ruling, during the period in question, Palavecino’s retirement increased 987%, while the consumer price index (CPI) accumulated more than 1,400%, which represented a loss of 42%in real terms. The Chamber considered that this situation violated the constitutional rights of the plaintiff, in particular the right to a worthy retirement enshrined in article 14 bis of the National Constitution.
The judges of the court decided to order the ANSES to recalculate the pavecino’s assets applying an alternative formula that combines the variation of the CPI and the Ripte salary index in equal parts. This methodology was adopted as a justice measure against the obvious erosion of the purchasing power suffered by the retiree. In addition, the Court ordered that the top of maximum assets be eliminated in force, because it is considered arbitrary in the context of the case.
As explained by the lawyer Adrián Tróccoli, the court opted for that mixed index – and not the IPC only as the failures of Mendoza and Mar del Plata were arranged – because he already issued others on the readjustment of assets in which he ordered that index. They are Caliva and Márquez failures, which refer to claims for the 2020 period where the Alberto Fernández government ordered increases by decree. “In that period, they ordered to replace the increases by decree with the Index of Location Contracts (rentals), composed of IPC and Ripte; then the Salta Chamber continues with that logic,” Tróccoli explained.
This is not the first ruling that questions the constitutionality of Law 27,609. In November 2024, the Federal Chamber of Mendoza had spoken in the “Cortés, Leonardo Evaristo c/ Anses” case, pointing out that the mobility formula implemented in 2021 did not guarantee a sufficient update against inflation, and that it had meant an unconstitutional decrease of the retirement. There, the need to protect retirees against the economic deterioration of their income was also recognized, even if legislative decisions respond to complex fiscal situation.
The ANSES appeals the judicial decisions, but in the case of the Mendoza ruling, the presentation was wrong so the failure was firm and the body has to move forward with the readjusty of the retiree who initiated the demand that initiated the demand that initiated the demand that initiated the demand
Subsequently, in April 2025, the Federal Chamber of Mar del Plata failed in a similar way in the “Giménez, Mirta Noemía C/ Anses” case. The Marplatense court argued that the mobility applied under the law questioned had meant a loss of 50.3% in the purchasing power of the pension being, and that this was incompatible with the principles of proportionality and substitute that the retirement system must govern.
Mendoza’s ruling was firm because the camera rejected Anses’s appeal to be poorly presented. In the case of Mar del Plata, there is still no definition.
The three failures agree that the formula based on the evolution of wages and collection (without direct indexation due to inflation) did not comply with the constitutional mandate of guaranteeing mobile, sufficient and up -to -date assets. They also note that the Executive Power itself recognized the deficiencies of the norm by repealing it through Decree 274/2024, which introduced a new monthly mobility formula exclusively tied to the CPI.
Said Decree, signed by President Javier Milei, suspended the validity of Law 27,609 and established a transition to an automatic mobility scheme by inflation. This decision was interpreted by the judges as a confirm that the previous framework was not appropriate to preserve the real value of retirement, especially in an inflationary context as high as the one that Argentina went through in recent years.
While these failures have individual effects – that is, they only apply to retirees who promote demand – they could open the door to a wave of similar litigation. In fact, pension lawyers are already recommending to their clients to initiate judicial actions to request the application of a more beneficial formula and the reimbursement of lost amounts.
“This ruling has two fundamental issues. The most important is that it marks a trend; the failures come to the Court with a solid criterion against the insufficient retirement mobility. And secondly, the Salta Chamber refutes the possibility of using the Salary Index of INDEC, which had been applied in 2007,” Tróccoli said.
Infobae
Related news :