00:00A problem that affected many people and that has been gradually resolved,
00:06first through case law and more recently through an included rule
00:13In the latest pension reform, it refers to the possibility of changing pension schemes.
00:20This means, for example, moving from the individual savings system with solidarity, which is
00:26the one that private entities administer with respect to private funds, or the regime
00:31of average premium with defined benefit, which is the one administered by Colpensiones.
00:37This possibility, as we have already said, of changing the regime when one has not been informed or enlightened
00:44people sufficiently aware of the benefits and drawbacks of one or the other, then derived
00:50in which people demanded the possibility of change.
00:54However, these changes were subject to deadlines, which, we repeat, the last
00:59The opportunity to make use of this possibility is contained in the latest pension reform.
01:11However, one concern that people sometimes used to raise, or that they often even
01:18The question that people still have to ask themselves is whether it's feasible when the person is already retired.
01:24demand that change.
01:25In this regard, let us say then that in a recent ruling by the Labor Chamber of the
01:31Supreme Court of Justice, specifically ruling SL-1009 of August 20th of the year
01:39In 2026, the corporation, reaffirming its jurisprudence, stated that it was not viable, that is, when the person
01:47She is already retired and cannot sue over the ineffectiveness of the transfer seeking to change
01:53regime.
01:53Why?
01:55The Labor Court stated that the change was not permissible because the person was already a pensioner.
02:02sorry, it acquires a special, definitive status that makes it so that if they were eventually admitted
02:09These changes would affect the rights of third parties and could even create an imbalance
02:16in the social security pension system, since financial transactions would have to be made
02:21which could lead to disruptions.
02:24From this point of view, we repeat, the Labor Chamber emphatically stated then, ratifying
02:30Its jurisprudence states that when a person is already retired, they cannot demand a change.
02:36pension system.
02:37However, and equally reaffirming its position, what the Court said is that in these cases
02:43when the person claims that they were not sufficiently informed about the benefits and drawbacks
02:50that the change implied, what I can aspire to is compensation for damages.
02:56And finally, very importantly in this ruling, the Court said that this compensation for damages
03:02is subject to the statute of limitations contained in or referring to the rights
03:08employment, which is three years.
03:10In other words, anyone who feels wronged while retired will have three years to file a lawsuit.
03:16the damages we are referring to.
03:19Those three years, the ruling also specified, must be counted not from the moment in which
03:24The change occurred, but from the moment the person became aware of the damage that was done
03:29had caused him, that is, the pension detriment from having changed from one system to the other.
03:35In conclusion then, once a person is retired, they cannot demand a change.
03:41What you can request is compensation for damages, which must be sought within
03:46within three years of the date on which she was notified or included on the payroll,
03:51at which point I could notice the difference, so that from that moment on
03:56that is, he can sue.
03:58If he does it later, then the action will have expired.
04:01We hope to have shed some light on this interesting topic, and we thank those who
04:06They usually follow us.
Comentarios