Retirement pensions form the bedrock of income security for citizens after they retire. However,accessing these pensions often requires meeting stringent criteria. One key requirement is a minimum contribution period, but in certain circumstances, courts are making exceptions, granting pensions even when the standard requirements aren’t fully met.

The 15-Year Rule: A Cornerstone of Retirement Eligibility

According to Article 205 of the General Social Security Law, a worker must contribute for at least 15 years to qualify for a retirement pension. This is a non-negotiable requirement for most individuals seeking to secure their post-employment income.

The law further specifies that at least two [years] must be included within fifteen years immediately before causing the right. This additional stipulation has proven challenging for some workers, leading to the growth and application of a legal concept known as the “parenthesis doctrine.”

The Parenthesis Doctrine: Bridging the Contribution Gap

The “parenthesis doctrine” addresses situations where a worker has accumulated 15 years of contributions but cannot demonstrate two years of contributions within the 15 years leading up to retirement. This doctrine essentially “brackets” or sets aside periods of non-contribution, allowing the worker to meet the necessary contribution requirements.

Judicial Interpretation: Involuntary Interruption is Key

The application of the parenthesis doctrine isn’t automatic. Courts have generally applied it only in cases where the individual’s failure to contribute was due to circumstances beyond their control. In this very way, the application of the parenthesis doctrine depends on the interpretation of a judge.

Several scenarios have been recognized by courts as potential grounds for applying the parenthesis doctrine:

• Long-term unemployment
• Receipt of non-contributory disability pensions
• Extended periods of incarceration without the chance to contribute
• Health conditions preventing the individual from maintaining their contribution status

Case Study: Supreme Court Upholds Parenthesis Doctrine

A Supreme Court case illustrates the practical application of this doctrine. In this instance, the court ruled in favor of an individual who had contributed 27 years but was denied a pension as he could not meet the two-year contribution requirement due to a prison sentence. The court considered that,by not offering the worker any option to work (and quote) in the 20 years in jail,it is indifferent that he did not get the two years necessary to meet the requirements of the pension,which is why all that time is considered neutral for the purpose of application of parentheses theory.

The court deemed the period of incarceration as neutral for the purpose of application of parentheses theory, effectively disregarding it when assessing the contribution requirements.

The full sentence is available on the website of the Judiciary.