In a report published this week, the Investidor Institucional website reported that the Superior Labour Court (TST) ruled on Monday (23 March) that the labour courts do not have jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation brought by members of deficit-ridden supplementary pension schemes against the sponsoring companies. According to the ruling, “it is not within the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts to hear and adjudicate claims for compensation brought against an employer or former employer arising from losses suffered by beneficiaries of closed supplementary pension funds, based on alleged mismanagement by pension entities or, furthermore, the commission or omission of unlawful acts attributable, in theory, to representatives appointed by the sponsor”.
In the ruling on the case, known as Theme 24, the reporting judge, Hugo Scheuermann, argued that jurisdiction to hear this type of case lies with the ordinary courts, a view that was unanimously approved.
The report highlighted that Bocater Advogados acted as amicus curiae in the case, representing the Association of Private Pension Funds (Apep), and featured comments from our partner Fernanda Rosa, who noted the quality of the reporting judge’s opinion. “It was a very high-quality opinion, truly impressive, which takes a very broad view of the supplementary pension system,” she said.
According to her, the TST’s ruling is “very important for the supplementary pension system, because a contrary ruling would not only fail to benefit the system’s beneficiaries — given that a system of liability is already provided for by law — but could also act as a disincentive for employers to sponsor benefit schemes”. Fernanda also explained to the website that a different ruling “would place the sponsor in the role of a kind of reinsurer, strictly liable for acts carried out within closed pension schemes”.
The ruling was also featured in an article on the Abrapp em Foco blog, with contributions from Fernanda.
Find out more details about the case and read the full reports at: