A súmula vinculante prevista no novo regimento interno do CRPS como instrumento de desjudicialização previdenciária

Abstract

The present work aims to identify the impacts of the binding precedent within the scope of the Social Security Review Council. The Council was created in 1939 with the aim of judging, as a last resort, appeals arising from the decisions of Institutes and Retirement and Pension Funds. In the last years of the more than 80 years of the Council's history, a persistent opponent has received special attention from the Federal Public Administration: the excessive judicialization of social security and assistance benefits and the growing distribution of reviews to the Council. To face the growing judicial demand, the Council recently approved an important innovation brought in its new Internal Regulations, namely, the possibility of adopting binding precedents in the social security administrative scope. From reflections on the structure of social protection and its main challenges, based on a brief exposition of the administrative control systems, the aforementioned binding precedents are pointed out as instruments that may contribute to the pacification of conflicts and the balance of the system as a whole. The adoption of binding precedents, with the cogent application to the INSS, has a strong potential to reduce the high burden of judicialization, given that several Council statements currently have a similar understanding to that adopted by the Judiciary, so that, even if a administrative request does not reach the review stage, the understanding of the Council, if summed up, must be adopted by the National Institute of Social Security. The measure will even have an impact on the reduction of reviews filed with the Council, given that the NISS should already adopt the appellate understanding in the analysis of administrative requirements in the first instance. In this way, they are identified as a true instrument capable of improving the administrative process and reducing the impact on the high social security judicialization.