Help could be garnished while you owe upkeep – breaking information, breaking information, prime headlines

According to the law, the pension cannot be confiscated, but since each rule has its exception, this rule has two. The pension can only be drawn if it is owed in the form of groceries or loans to cooperatives. This is only possible if you have discounts on the net value of the monthly pension, as long as the pensioner receives at least 50% of the total income. In accordance with Decree 994 of 2003, it is pointed out that maintenance or credit embargoes in favor of cooperatives or employee funds must not exceed 50% of this benefit.

The Constitutional Court It is the body responsible for guaranteeing those whose pensions are eligible for the reasons already mentioned. According to the Court, if the pension quota is equal to or less than the minimum wage ($ 908,256 for that year), a person cannot be withdrawn from the pension, as this amount must guarantee the right of the living minimum of pensioners and hence a wage from their families that enables them to obtain the basic resources to survive according to socio-economic and personal conditions.

In accordance with the minimum wage set in the 1999 SU-995 judgment, the Constitutional Court stated: “The assessment of the vital minimum of the pensioner is not an objective qualification, but depends on the specific situations of the plaintiff. Therefore, the concept of the vital minimum is identified not with the amount of sums owed or a numerical assessment of the minimum biological needs for survival, but with the material appreciation of the value of their labor. The case law has therefore taken into account that the age of the pensioner and the economic dependency of the pension benefit are important but not exclusive factors for its analysis. “

El Espectador newspaper proposed two pension embargo cases explaining how the Court of Justice can affect a person’s monthly pension.

If you’re interested, we encourage you to read: Duque is extending selective isolation in Colombia until February 28th

First case after El Espectador:

In 2006 decision T-1015, the Constitutional Court analyzed the case of a worker who “received discounts on his salary of more than 50% of total earnings; A 50% food embargo court order was placed on the actor’s salary, and another 38% was deducted to pay commitments acquired at various credit institutions. On that occasion, the Eighth Review Chamber pointed out that the discounts granted from the salary of an employee, even if approved, must comply with the legal limits set by the legislature, in particular those that indicate the prohibition on granting discounts that (i ) the electricity relates to the monthly statutory minimum and (ii) the amount that cannot be raised according to the labor regulations. “

After the analysis, the company asked the company that generated this discount, it was shown that the retiree was receiving an amount that was below the minimum wage and therefore the employer was instructed to offset the discounts given to the employee in such a case were way to respect their rights to a minimum.

The Review Chamber took the view that “creditors have the opportunity to turn to the competent judicial authorities and assert their rights in relation to the obligations acquired by the employee if the legal limit set prevents the deductions authorized by the employee”.

According to the newspaper, it should be borne in mind that labor rules apply to the amount of discounts that can be granted from pension benefits. The content-related considerations set out in the cited judgment were included in judgment T-581A of 2011 for a review by the Constitutional Court.

Second case after El Espectador:

In this case, the situation of a pensioner from the Armed Forces Pension Fund who “earned a pension worth 1,975,208 pesos; However, as soon as discounts were granted for a maintenance payment in favor of his ex-wife and children, as well as for obligations to financial corporations, he received 659,793 pesos. The defendant alleged that the accrued amount was insufficient to (i) pay for medical services required to treat chronic kidney failure and (ii) meet the basic needs of his 8-year-old daughter. In the Court’s view, the Pension Fund granted discounts ranging from the actor’s compulsory pension in excess of 50% of the value of total income to affecting the minimum amount the actor and his family needed to survive. “

In this case, the Constitutional Court ordered the acting company to set the discounts granted by the actor’s age allowance in such a way that his monthly income is guaranteed in proportion to his expenses.

Comments are closed.