Observation (CEACR) - adopted 2011, published 101st ILC session (2012)

Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) - Costa Rica (Ratification: 1972)

Other comments on C102

Observation

Direct Request

Display in: French - SpanishView all

I. Reform of the national old-age, invalidity and survivors’ insurance scheme

In 2000, the Workers’ Protection Act No. 7983 established the new regulatory framework for old-age pensions, made up of a public social security scheme, a compulsory private scheme, a voluntary private scheme and a public non-contributory scheme. With a view to ensuring the sustainability of the Social Security Fund of Costa Rica, important changes were made in April 2005 to the first “pillar” of the Regulation concerning the national old-age, invalidity and survivors’ insurance programme (IVM), which covers about 800,000 workers. For the most part, these changes focused on: the introduction of a new mechanism to determine a basic pension rate to help those with low incomes; the introduction of a pension with proportional rates after 15 years; the extension of the minimum contributory period and the period used to determine earnings taken into consideration to calculate old-age and invalidity benefits; the gradual increase of contributions over a period of 30 years; and the introduction of an invalidity pension at a rate of 50 per cent of the full-rate invalidity pension for persons aged 48 years and over who have contributed for at least 60 months. In order to understand more clearly the way in which the Convention is implemented in the light of the considerable changes made in the country with respect to the abovementioned benefits, the Committee requests the Government to provide, in its next detailed report due in 2012, all the information required by the report form under each of the Parts of the Convention accepted by Costa Rica, i.e., Parts II and V to X, as well as the statistics required by Article 76 of the Convention.

II. Questions raised previously

Referring to its previous comments, the Committee notes with satisfaction the amendments made in 2007 to the Regulation concerning old-age, invalidity and survivors’ insurance and death, which introduced a proportional pension for beneficiaries who have reached 65 years of age and paid a total of 180 contributions, i.e. 15 years, in accordance with the requirements of Article 29(2)(a) of the Convention. The Committee also notes the statistical information demonstrating the correlation between the reassessment of the pensions, the inflation rate and the upgrading of salaries.

Part VI (Employment injury and occupational illness benefit), Articles 34, 36 and 38 (in conjunction with Article 69). The Committee notes that no change has been made to the limited period during which pensions are paid in the event of minor or partial permanent disability and in the event of death of the breadwinner. The Government refers once again in its report to a communication from the National Insurance Institute, which considers that there is no reason to amend the national legislation given that national policy attempts to reinstate the victims of occupational accidents into professional life, provided that their incapacity for work is not total and enables them to continue working. In this respect, the Committee reminds the Government that it has an overall responsibility to implement the Convention by guaranteeing the benefits due, and that there is no question of referring to an opinion handed down by the competent authority to avoid compliance with international obligations arising from ratified Conventions. The Committee recalls once again that the degree of loss of earnings capacity considered to be a minimum threshold by the legislation (section 223 of the Labour Code) ranges between 0.5 per cent and 50 per cent, implying that a person having lost half of his capacity to work following an occupational accident may be deprived of benefits which should be guaranteed throughout the duration of the contingency. In this respect, the Committee points out that the Convention favours the vocational rehabilitation of victims who are permanently disabled and their reintegration into the labour force, but authorizes the cumulation of the permanent disability pension with any other possible income that persons might earn by drawing upon their remaining capacity to work. In these circumstances, the Committee can only hope that the Government will take the necessary measures to amend the relevant provisions of the Labour Code so that in all cases of permanent incapacity, partial incapacity higher than 25 per cent, or death, periodical cash payments are granted for life, in accordance with the Convention, without any condition as to resources.

Part VII (Family benefits), Articles 40 and 44. In reply to the Committee’s previous comments concerning the need to amend the system of family benefits to bring it into line with the definition of the contingency defined under Article 4 of the Convention, the Government states that, despite the efforts made to comply with the Convention, the socio-economic factors affecting developing countries means that it does not have sufficient resources to pay the family benefits at the rates required by the Convention. The Committee recalls in this respect that the benefits paid at present to low-income families under section 4 of Act No. 5662 of 23 December 1974 and section 2 of Act No. 4760 of 30 April 1971 are means-tested. In these circumstances, the Committee would like to ask the Government to provide in its next report additional information on the types of benefits provided under the legislation quoted above and to indicate whether actuarial studies have been carried out with a view to assessing the financial implications of introducing a branch providing benefits to families, in accordance with Part VII of the Convention.

III. Questions raised by the Confederation of Workers Rerum Novarum (CTRN) and the Trade Union of Employees of the Ministry of Finance (SINDHAC)

The Committee took note of the comments made by the CTRN and the SINDHAC, as well as of the Government’s full reply to these comments. Referring to its 2003 observation, the Committee reiterates that the reference under Article 29(1)(a) of the Convention to the qualifying period of “20 years of residence” refers to universal non-contributory schemes and does not, therefore, refer to schemes which are financed by contributions.