How to correctly interpret the constitutional principle of irreducibility of pension assets?
In the precedent SEP, the TSJ had to analyze whether or not a provincial law violated the local constitutional principle of the irreducibility of pension assets. It decided that it did not, because what was irreducible was not the amount of pension assets but their proportionality, since the opposit...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Artículo revista |
| Lenguaje: | Español |
| Publicado: |
Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas y Sociales - FD - UNC - CONICET
2022
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistas.unc.edu.ar/index.php/anuariocijs/article/view/37527 |
| Aporte de: |
| Sumario: | In the precedent SEP, the TSJ had to analyze whether or not a provincial law violated the local constitutional principle of the irreducibility of pension assets. It decided that it did not, because what was irreducible was not the amount of pension assets but their proportionality, since the opposite would lead to an absurd result. The idea of this paper is precisely to analyze and to criticize the way in which the TSJ uses some interpretative arguments (literal, systematic interpretation, reduction to the absurd, economic emergency, deference to the legislator and proportionality), with the aim of showing that, if properly used, those same arguments do not give support to the decision. |
|---|