Res. 00945-2004 Sala Segunda de la Corte — Requirements for a Pension under the Communications Regime

OutcomeResultado

DeniedSin lugar

The appeal is denied and the lower court ruling rejecting the Communications Regime pension is affirmed.Se declara sin lugar el recurso y se confirma la sentencia que denegó la pensión del Régimen de Comunicaciones al actor.

SummaryResumen

The Second Chamber analyzes whether a former Ministry of Governance employee is entitled to a Communications Regime pension. It reviews the legal history from Law No. 4 of 1940, through reforms by Laws 4513, 6611, 7015, 7040, and 7097, the unconstitutionality ruling in Voto 2136-91, the General Pensions Law 7302, and the final repeal by the Postal Law 7768. The Court concludes the plaintiff never completed the required 20 years of service in the relevant sector while the favorable norms were in effect, nor within the grace periods after their repeal or annulment. Since he did not meet the standard requirements of Article 2 of Law No. 4 before the regime's final expiration, his pension rights are preserved but must be pursued under the general Social Security regime. The lower court ruling is upheld.La Sala Segunda analiza la procedencia del derecho a pensión del Régimen de Comunicaciones reclamado por un ex funcionario del Ministerio de Gobernación. Detalla la evolución normativa de ese régimen desde la Ley N° 4 de 1940, pasando por las reformas de las leyes 4513, 6611, 7015, 7040 y 7097, la declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad del Voto 2136-91 de la Sala Constitucional, la Ley Marco de Pensiones (7302) y la derogatoria final por la Ley de Correos 7768. Concluye que el actor no cumplió el requisito de 20 años de servicios en el régimen de pertenencia durante la vigencia de las normas que le hubieran permitido pensionarse anticipadamente, ni dentro de los plazos transitorios posteriores. Al no reunir los requisitos del artículo 2 de la Ley N° 4 antes de la derogatoria definitiva, su derecho a la jubilación subsiste, pero bajo el régimen de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, por lo que se confirma la sentencia recurrida.

Key excerptExtracto clave

In accordance with the foregoing, no errors are found in the ruling of the lower court as attributed by the appellant.Consecuentes con lo expuesto, no se aprecian los errores que el recurrente le atribuye a la sentencia del Ad-quem.

Pull quotesCitas destacadas

"En casos como el que se analiza en este proceso, el derecho fundamental a la jubilación se mantiene, pero por el régimen de la Caja, pues el actor no logró cumplir con los requisitos previstos por el artículo 2 de la Ley N° 4, antes del primero de marzo del 2000."

"In cases such as the one analyzed here, the fundamental right to retirement is preserved, but under the Social Security regime, because the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Article 2 of Law No. 4 before March 1, 2000."

Considerando IV

"En casos como el que se analiza en este proceso, el derecho fundamental a la jubilación se mantiene, pero por el régimen de la Caja, pues el actor no logró cumplir con los requisitos previstos por el artículo 2 de la Ley N° 4, antes del primero de marzo del 2000."

Considerando IV

"El derecho reclamado tampoco encuentra sustento en los votos de la Sala Constitucional números 2136-91... porque el recurrente no logró reunir los requisitos de tiempo de servicios en el régimen de pertenencia que las mismas exigían."

"The claimed right also finds no support in Constitutional Chamber rulings No. 2136-91... because the appellant failed to meet the service-time requirements in the membership regime that those rulings demanded."

Considerando IV

"El derecho reclamado tampoco encuentra sustento en los votos de la Sala Constitucional números 2136-91... porque el recurrente no logró reunir los requisitos de tiempo de servicios en el régimen de pertenencia que las mismas exigían."

Considerando IV

Full documentDocumento completo

III.- ON THE SPECIAL COMMUNICATIONS PENSION REGIME: The Communications Pension Regime is a special regime created by Law No. 4 of September 23, 1940. The original beneficiaries were “The servants of the Government of the Republic in the Communications branch (Correos, Telégrafos, Teléfonos y Radios Nacionales), except the telegraphers and messengers of the Ferrocarril [Dirección1], who find themselves in the circumstances detailed below, shall have the right to State aid in accordance with the following articles” (art. 1). That law established two types of pensions, the ordinary and the extraordinary. The requirements to enjoy an ordinary pension are: having 30 years of service and 50 or more years of age. This is gathered from Article 2, which stipulates: "Officials who have thirty years of service and fifty or more years of age shall have the right to request their pension in an amount equal to the average of the salaries earned during the twelve months preceding their request." The requirement to access the extraordinary pension, regarding time of service, is a minimum of 10 years. In this regard, Article 3 indicated: "Those who do not have thirty years of service nor fifty years of age, but who have served for more than ten years and find themselves, due to duly proven illness, absolutely and permanently unable to continue in their functions, shall have the right to retire with an endowment equivalent to the product of one-thirtieth of the average salaries earned during the twelve months preceding their request multiplied by the number of years served. Those who are separated from their position or have been in the two years prior to the issuance of this law, without their consent and without having incurred serious misconduct that justified such separation, shall have that same right." The law under discussion, in Article 7, regulated the manner of computing years of service, stating: “For the computation of time served it is not necessary that the services have been provided continuously; it is sufficient that they have been provided in the Communications branch (Correos, Telégrafos, Radios Nacionales or Teléfonos), even in different positions. Services in other branches of the Public Administration shall be taken into account, for a period of up to 10 years, when the applicant for the benefit, or his or her successor, demonstrates that the last period of service was in the Communications branch and for a period of no less than 5 years.” (The highlighting is not in the original). That law underwent additions and several modifications. Thus, on January 2, 1970, Law No. 4513 of January 2, 1970, was issued, with the objective of regulating the transfer of officials, ensuring their labor guarantees until the moment they claimed their pension, due to the automation and mechanization of the services operated by the entities in charge of the Telégrafo, Teléfonos and Radios Nacionales service. An exception to the rule of 30 years of service and 50 years of age was created through that law, Article 4. This exception covered all those workers of the Communications Department of the Ministerio de Gobernación, Casa Presidencial, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública and Ministerio de Transportes who could not be relocated due to the automation of communications services, for exceptional reasons, and who had 20 years of service. In those cases, the Government had to pension them with 80% of the average salary earned in the 5 years prior to dismissal for said reason.

That article (4 of Law 4513) stated: “Those workers of the Department of Communications of the Ministry of Governance, Presidential House, Ministry of Public Security, and Ministry of Transport who are not utilized by the company upon the transfer of services shall be employed by the Central Government in other Departments of the Public Administration, in office functions similar to those they are performing, with the same allocations and acquired rights, and shall remain in such situation until they complete their periods to retire. Those who cannot be reassigned for exceptional reasons, in the judgment of the Executive Branch, and have twenty to twenty-five years of service, the Government shall pension them with 80% of the average of the salaries earned during the last five years; and those who have more than twenty-five years of service, with 100% of the average of the salaries earned during the last five years”. (The emphasis is not from the original). As can be noted, it was an exception to the rule established by numeral 2 of Law No. 4 and had specific recipients. Through Law No. 6611 of August 13, 1981, articles 1, 4, and 7 of Law 4513 were reformed. Article  4 was redrafted in the following terms: “By reason of the automation and mechanization of services, or the transfer to another company or institution, for those servers who so desire -with the consent of the respective Minister-  and who have twenty to twenty-five years of service, the Government shall pension them with eighty percent of the average of the salaries of the last twelve months, and those who have more than twenty-five years of service the Government shall pension them with one hundred percent of the average of the salaries of the last twelve months.In both cases, these pensions shall be granted through Law No. 4 of September 23, 1940, and its reforms, with all the benefits contained therein”. (The emphasis is that of the drafter). As can be noted, with that reform the “consent of the worker and the permission of the Minister” is required, in addition to the minimum 20 years in the Department of Communications. The Law No. 7015, of November 22, 1985, expanded the coverage of the Communications Pension Regime, by including as recipients of that regime all the servers of the central administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police. This was provided through article 108, which stated: “All the servers of the central administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police may avail themselves of the Communications pension regime, under the same terms established in Law No. 4 of September 23, 1940, and its reforms, with the exception of the provision in the last paragraph of article 7 of the cited law. The contributions made by these servers to another pension regime shall be transferred to the Communications regime\". That is to say, the general rule of 30 years of service and 50 years of age was not changed, which was reasonable, because those of the central administration of the cited Ministry did not run the risk of impossibility of relocation due to the effects of the automation of communications services. Furthermore, it should be noted that Law No. 4 would apply with the exception of the provision in the last paragraph of article 7, that is, the one referring to the requirement of having worked at least the last 5 years in the central administration of the Ministry of Governance, in order to count up to 10 years of service in other branches of the Public Administration. Law No. 7040, article 40, subsection 29, of April 25, 1986, created special conditions to avail oneself of the pension regime for the servers of the central administration of the  Ministry of Governance and Police, since it allowed retiring with 20 years of service in that Ministry, without the minimum age limit of 50 years and not requiring 5 years of service in that sector to count services rendered in other branches of the Public Administration, by providing: “All the servers of the central administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police may avail themselves of the Communications Pension Regime, under the same terms established in Law No. 4 of September 23, 1940, and its reforms, with the exception of article 2  and the provision in the last paragraph of article 7 of the cited law, which shall not apply.  In addition, they may avail themselves of the provisions of Laws No. 4513 of January 2, 1970, and No. 6611 of September 22, 1981.  The contributions made by these servers to another pension regime shall be transferred to the Communications Pension Regime\". (The emphasis is that of the drafter). With Law No. 7097, of August 18, 1988, in its numeral 82, it reduced the coverage of the Communications Pension Law, leaving the servers of the central administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police outside of its protection, by providing the following: “Article 108 of Law No. 7015, of November 29, 1985, and article 40, subsection 29), of Law 7040, of April 25, 1986, are repealed. The employees of the Central Administration of the Ministry of Governance who, at the promulgation of this law, are contributing to the communications pension regime, may avail themselves of its benefits\". (The highlighting is not from the original). In this way, the employees of the central administration of the Ministry of Governance were guaranteed temporary coverage, being unable to opt for a pension under the Communications Regime and under the terms of norm 29 of Law 7040 (with 20 years of service). Those who had been contributing to that regime retained the option to avail themselves of it, but logically, they could only do so with 20 years if they completed them within the eighteen months following the repeal or with the requirements of article 2 of Law No. 4, otherwise. The incidence on the Communications Pension Regime of article 82 of Law 7097, of August 18, 1988, concluded  with the annulment decreed by the Constitutional Chamber  through Voto Nº 2136-91, issued at 14:00 hours on October 23, 1991, and published in the Boletín Judicial Nº 232 of December 4 of that year. In dimensioning the vote, the Chamber provided that the effects were \"retroactive and declaratory to the effective date of the annulled norms, without prejudice to those rights acquired in good faith, regarding those persons who are currently enjoying the benefits granted by those norms and those other rights born prior to the first publication referred to in article 90, first paragraph of the Law regulating this jurisdiction, whether or not they have been claimed, or the recognition declared or begun to receive the amount of the retirement pension\". Another normative event of interest for the case at hand occurred on July 8, 1992, the date on which Law No. 7302 was enacted, called “Law for the Creation of the General Pension Regime Charged to the National Budget,” which entered into force on July 15 of that year, respecting the acquired rights of those persons who, protected by special regimes, such as the Communications one,  met the requirements to retire. This law established a General Regime, through which the diverse systems of retirement pensions and pensions that were based on the provision of services to the State (with the exception of the Regime of the Judicial Branch and the National Teaching Profession) and whose payment was charged to the National Budget were standardized. In this way, it was intended to overcome the differences existing between the different regimes, to avoid privileged treatment for some public servants, which had been generating discontent in other sectors. In article 4, it set the requirements to obtain retirement in the following terms: “The following shall have the right to avail themselves of retirement: a) Servers who are at least sixty years of age, who have served the State and contributed to the special regime to which they belong for at least thirty years; b) Servers who are over sixty-five years of age and who have served and contributed to the special regime to which they belong for over twenty years…”. In article 41, that law repealed, among others, “...all the provisions of the laws regulating the different special pension regimes, that are contrary to it.”. (The emphasis is not from the original), among which was the Communications one. Likewise, in its Transitory Provision II  it provided that those who, upon the entry into force of the law, met the requirements to acquire the right to a pension, as established by the corresponding special regime,“shall retain their right to retire under the protection of that special normative framework”, and; in Transitory Provision III it established that “Those persons, whose age to retire or draw a pension is established at sixty years and who, upon the entry into force of this Law, are or have been servers of the regimes contemplated in this norm, may deduct from the retirement age one year for every two years served and contributed to the Public Administration. In any case, in order to retire or draw a pension, a minimum of fifty-five years of age and the years served as determined by their regime shall be required. Nevertheless, those who, upon this Law entering into force, have less than eighteen months to be able to retire or draw a pension according to the original requirements of the legislation being repealed, may retire or draw a pension upon fulfilling those requirements, but in this case they must contribute fourteen percent (14%) of the amount of their pension until they reach sixty years of age, a date from which they shall continue contributing as corresponds according to this Law...” (The highlighting is not in the original).   Finally, on April 24, 1998, Law No. 7768 (Postal Law) was enacted, published in La Gaceta N° 103 of May 29, 1998, effective as of August 29 of that year. This law repealed, in its article 18, subsection d), the  Communications Retirement and Pension Law, No. 4, of September 23, 1940, respecting the rights of those who, within the eighteen months following its effectiveness, met the originally established requirements. This follows from Transitory Provision VII, which states: “The servers who have contributed to the Communications Pension Regime, created by the Communications Retirement and Pension Law, No. 4, of September 23, 1940, shall be included in the Disability, Old Age, and Death Regime administered by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (...).Those who, within the eighteen months following the effectiveness of this law, meet the requirements to acquire the right to the old-age or disability pension, of the Communications Pension Regime, may retire under the conditions indicated in the Communications Retirement and Pension Law, No. 4, of September 23, 1940, here repealed”. (The highlighting is not in the original). With that regulation, the transitory application (from August 29, 1998, to February 29, 2000) of the cited law (No. 4) and of  4513 was permitted for all the servers contemplated therein. It remains, then, to determine if the plaintiff managed to be covered by the effects of those laws, before their repeal or within the indicated transitory period. IV.- ANALYSIS OF THE FACTUAL SITUATION OF THE CASE UNDER STUDY: It was proven that the appellant was born on July 19, 1953  (folio 185); worked at the Consejo Nacional de Producción from March 29, 1970, to January 3, 1971 (folio 185); beginning on April 1, 1971, in the Central Public Administration (folios 154 to 156), in various Ministries; for the Ministry of Governance and Police from November 1984 to October 20, 1993 (folios 155 and 156), a period in which he only served, in the Central Administration of that Ministry,  from November 1984 to April 1, 1986, since from there he moved to the Migration and Immigration program (folio 156 in relation to 165 and 169 of the case file). It is also proven that he contributed to the Communications Pension fund from  January 1 , 1986, until November 23, 1993. From the factual situation indicated above, it is concluded that the claimant could not acquire the right to a pension under the Communications Regime based on Laws No. 7015 and 7040, because although he worked in the central administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police, from November 1984 to April 1986,  when the first of those normative bodies entered into force, which allowed him entry into the general Communications regime, it is also true that he had to meet the requirements set forth in article 2 of Law No. 4, since upon his entry (November 1984) he was not protected, up to that moment, by Law 4513 of January 2, 1970, and its reform by 6611 of August 13, 1981, because he did not work in the Department of Communications of the Ministry of Governance and Police. It is with the entry into force of Law 7040 that, had he worked twenty years during the effectiveness of that law, he could have retired with 80% of the average salary of the last five years  of service (without the requirement of 50 years of age), but that factual assumption was not fulfilled between April 1986 and August 1988 when article 29 of the referred law (7040) was in force, which was repealed by Law 7097. With the declaration of unconstitutionality of that law (7040), of 7015, and of 7097 of September 1, 1988, by means of Voto Nº 2136-91, he was left outside the coverage of the Communications Regime, because he did not manage to meet the requirements provided by article 2 (30 years of service and 50 years of age) within the eighteen months following the first publication of the action that generated that vote. It is true that Law 7040 of April 25, 1986, allowed retiring with 20 years of service and the transfer to the Communications Regime of contributions made to another pension regime, which implied the recognition of time served in other public entities outside the central sector of said Ministry. It is also true that the obligation to work in the regime of belonging for 20 years was maintained; which is inferred from the relationship between articles 2 and 7, first paragraph, of Law No. 4, of the special regime  related to it, which derives from Law No. 4513 of January 2, 1970, which in turn was reformed by No. 6611 of August 13, 1981, and from Laws  7015 and 7040. From the evidence provided to the case file, it is clear that this factual assumption (time of service in the regime of belonging required by law) was not fulfilled in this case, because although he continued contributing to the Communications Regime, after having stopped working in the central administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police (folios 155 to 158 of the case file), he did not manage to accumulate 20 years of service in the regime of belonging. A requirement that he also did not meet within the eighteen months following the repeal of the norms  108 of Law No. 7015 and 29 of Law No. 7040 (article 40), which occurred by provision of article 82 of Law No. 7097, of August 18, 1988. The right claimed also finds no support in the votes of the Constitutional Chamber numbers 2136-91, of fourteen hundred hours on October twenty-third, nineteen ninety-one, which annulled the norms contained in articles 108 of Law 7015, 40, subsection 29 of 7040  and 82 of Law 7097, because the appellant did not manage to meet the time-of-service requirements in the regime of belonging that they demanded by reference to article 7, first paragraph of Law No. 4, cited above. Nor does it find legal support in Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992, since, as indicated in the preceding recital, this repealed “…all the provisions of the laws regulating the different special pension regimes that are contrary to it”, safeguarding the cases of those who, being under those special systems, such as the Communications one, met the requirements to acquire the right, upon the entry into force of said law (Law 7302, Transitory Provision II) or of the persons who had less than 18 months remaining to meet the original requirements of the legislation repealed by 7302, counted from the effectiveness of the latter. From the correlation of those legal provisions with the de facto situation presented in this case, there is no doubt that the plaintiff also did not manage to meet the normative requirements derived from that Framework Pension Law. In the year 1993, Voto No. 5476 was issued at eighteen hours three minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-three, where the Constitutional Chamber reiterated that retirement is a constitutional and fundamental right  of every worker and that as such it must be recognized to every human being under conditions of equality and without any discrimination. That there is a general right of belonging from the moment one enters a regime, but the right to retire under it is acquired when the requirements demanded by the regulations governing it are met. That the specific conditions of a regime, such as the age and the years to retire, may vary in the future and affect the beneficiaries who have more than 18 months remaining to meet the requirements of the regulatory framework that is modified, but the right to belong to the regime and to retire under the same general conditions cannot be modified as it has been consolidated as an acquired right (see recital II of the cited vote). As can be noted, the Constitutional Chamber is basing itself on the permanence of a regime. That Chamber adds that in order to retire with the requirements of 20 or 25 years of service in the Central Administration of the Ministry of Governance, in the first case with a pension of 80% of the average of the last twelve salaries and 100% in the second case, it was required to have met those requirements during the  effectiveness of article 29 of Law No. 7040, a norm that, as we have already seen, was annulled by Voto No. 2136 of October 23, 1991; a requirement that, as already indicated before, the plaintiff did not manage to meet. From Voto N° 5476-93, it follows that those who, being officials of the Central Administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police, did not manage to retire during the effectiveness of Law 7040, while Law No. 4 was in force, had to meet the requirements provided by article 2 of the latter, that is, with 30 years of service and 50 years of age. It is clear, then, that the Chamber started from the assumption that the regime remained in force.

However, as Law No. 4 was repealed by Law No. 7768 (Article 18, subsection d), of April 24, 1998, effective as of August 29 of that year; it provided that those who did not meet the requirements within eighteen months after its effective date (at the end of February 2000) and who had contributed to that regime, must transfer to the regime of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (Transitory Provision VII); that is, in cases such as the one being analyzed in this proceeding, the fundamental right to retirement is maintained, but under the regime of the Caja, since the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements set forth in Article 2 of Law No. 4, before March 1, 2000. In accordance with the foregoing, the errors attributed by the appellant to the Ad-quem judgment are not apparent.

However, those who, when this Law enters into force, have less than eighteen months remaining to be able to receive a pension or retire **according to the original requirements of the legislation being repealed, may receive a pension or retire upon fulfilling those requirements**, but in this case they must contribute fourteen percent (14%) of the amount of their pension until reaching sixty years of age, a date from which they will continue contributing as corresponds to them according to this Law...” (The highlighting is not in the original).

Finally, on April 24, 1998, **Law No. 7768** (Postal Law) was enacted, published in La Gaceta No. 103 of May 29, 1998, effective as of August 29 of that year. This law repealed, in its article 18, subsection d), the Communications Retirement and Pension Law, No. 4, of September 23, 1940, respecting the rights of those who, within the eighteen months following its entry into force, fulfilled the originally established requirements. This is evident from Transitory Provision VII, which states: “Servers who have contributed to the Communications Pension Regime, created by the Communications Retirement and Pension Law, No. 4, of September 23, 1940, shall be included in the Disability, Old Age, and Death Regime administered by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (...). **Those who, within the eighteen months following the entry into force of this law, fulfill the requirements to acquire the right to an old-age or disability pension from the Communications Pension Regime, may receive a pension under the conditions indicated in the Communications Retirement and Pension Law, No. 4, of September 23, 1940, hereby repealed**.” (The highlighting is not in the original). With that regulation, the temporary application (from August 29, 1998, to February 29, 2000) of the cited law (No. 4) and of Law 4513 was permitted for all servers contemplated therein. It remains, then, to determine whether the plaintiff managed to be covered by the effects of those laws, before their repeal or within the indicated transitory period.

**IV.- ANALYSIS OF THE FACTUAL SITUATION OF THE CASE UNDER STUDY:** It was proven that the appellant was born on July 19, 1953 (folio 185); worked at the National Production Council from March 29, 1970, until January 3, 1971 (folio 185); starting on April 1, 1971, in the Central Public Administration (folios 154 to 156), in various Ministries; for the Ministry of Governance and Police from November 1984 to October 20, 1993 (folios 155 and 156), a period in which he only served, in the Central Administration of that Ministry, from November 1984 to April 1, 1986, since from there he moved to the Migration and Foreign Affairs program (folio 156 in relation to 165 and 169 of the case file). It was also proven that he contributed to the Communications Pension fund from January 1, 1986, until November 23, 1993. From the factual situation noted above, it is concluded that the plaintiff could not acquire the right to a pension from the Communications Regime based on Laws Numbers 7015 and 7040, because although he worked in the central administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police from November 1984 to April 1986, when the first of those normative bodies entered into force, which allowed him entry into the general Communications regime, it is also true that he had to fulfill the requirements set forth in article 2 of Law No. 4, since upon his entry (November 1984), Law 4513 of January 2, 1970, and its amendment by Law 6611 of August 13, 1981, did not cover him up to that point, because he did not work in the Communications Department of the Ministry of Governance and Police. It is with the entry into force of Law 7040 that, had he worked twenty years during the validity of that law, he could have retired with 80% of the average salary of the last five years of service (without the requirement of 50 years of age), but that factual scenario did not occur between April 1986 and August 1988, during which article 29 of the referenced law (7040) was in effect, which was repealed by Law 7097. With the declaration of unconstitutionality of that law (7040), Law 7015, and Law 7097 of September 1, 1988, by means of vote No. 2136-91, he was left outside the coverage of the Communications Regime, because he did not manage to fulfill the requirements set forth by article 2 (30 years of service and 50 years of age) within the eighteen months following the first publication of the action that generated that vote. It is true that Law 7040 of April 25, 1986, allowed retirement with 20 years of service and the transfer to the Communications Regime of contributions made to another pension regime, which implied the recognition of time served in other public entities outside the central sector of said Ministry. It is also true that the obligation to work in the regime of belonging for 20 years was maintained; which is inferred from the relationship between articles 2 and 7, first paragraph, of Law No. 4, of the special regime related to it, which derives from Law No. 4513 of January 2, 1970, which in turn was amended by Law No. 6611 of August 13, 1981, and from Laws 7015 and 7040. From the evidence provided in the case file, it is clear that this factual scenario (time of service in the regime of belonging required by law) was not fulfilled in this case, because although he continued contributing to the Communications Regime, after having stopped working in the central administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police (folios 155 to 158 of the case file), he did not manage to accumulate 20 years of service in the regime of belonging. A requirement that he also did not fulfill within the eighteen months following the repeal of the norms: article 108 of Law No. 7015 and article 29 of Law No. 7040 (article 40), which occurred by provision of article 82 of Law No. 7097, of August 18, 1988. The right claimed also finds no support in the votes of the Constitutional Chamber numbers 2136-91, at two o'clock in the afternoon on October twenty-third, nineteen ninety-one, which annulled the norms contained in articles 108 of Law 7015, 40, subsection 29 of Law 7040, and 82 of Law 7097, because the appellant did not manage to meet the service time requirements in the regime of belonging that they demanded by reference to article 7, first paragraph of Law No. 4, cited above. Nor does it find legal support in Law No. 7302 of July 8, 1992, since, as indicated in the preceding recital, this law repealed “…all provisions of the laws regulating the different special pension regimes that oppose it,” leaving safe the cases of those who, being under those special systems, such as that of Communications, met the requirements to acquire the right upon the entry into force of said law (Law 7302, Transitory Provision II) or of persons who had less than 18 months remaining to fulfill the original requirements of the legislation repealed by Law 7302, counted from its entry into force. From the correlation of those legal provisions with the factual situation presented in this case, there can be no doubt that the plaintiff also failed to comply with the normative requirements arising from that Pensions Framework Law. In 1993, vote number 5476 at eighteen hours and three minutes on October twenty-seventh, nineteen ninety-three, was issued, where the Constitutional Chamber reiterated that retirement is a constitutional and fundamental right of every worker and that, as such, it must be recognized for every human being under conditions of equality and without any discrimination. That there is a general right of belonging once one enters a regime, but the right to receive a pension under it is acquired when the requirements demanded by the norms that regulate it are fulfilled. That the specific conditions of a regime, such as age and years of service to retire, may vary in the future and affect beneficiaries who have more than 18 months left to fulfill the requirements of the amended norm, but the right to belong to the regime and to retire under the same general conditions cannot be modified, having been consolidated as an acquired right (see recital II of the cited vote). As can be noted, the Constitutional Chamber is starting from the permanence of a regime. That Chamber adds that to retire with the requirements of 20 or 25 years of service in the Central Administration of the Ministry of Governance, in the first case with a pension of 80% of the average of the last twelve salaries and 100% in the second case, it was required to have fulfilled those requirements during the validity of article 29 of Law No. 7040, a norm that, as we have already seen, was annulled by means of vote number 2136 of October 23, 1991; a requirement that, as already indicated before, the plaintiff did not manage to fulfill. From vote No. 5476-93, it is evident that, those who, being officials of the Central Administration of the Ministry of Governance and Police, did not manage to retire during the validity of Law 7040, while Law No. 4 was in force, had to comply with the requirements set forth by article 2 thereof, that is, with 30 years of service and 50 years of age. It is clear, then, that the Chamber started from the assumption that the regime was still in force. However, since Law No. 4 was repealed by Law No. 7768 (article 18, subsection d), of April 24, 1998, effective as of August 29 of that year; it provided that those who did not fulfill the requirements within the eighteen months following its entry into force (at the end of February 2000) and who had contributed to that regime, had to transfer to the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Transitory Provision VII); that is, in cases like the one being analyzed in this proceeding, the fundamental right to retirement is maintained, but under the regime of the Fund, since the plaintiff did not manage to fulfill the requirements set forth by article 2 of Law No. 4, before March 1, 2000. In accordance with the foregoing, the errors that the appellant attributes to the lower court's judgment are not observed."

"III.- SOBRE EL RÉGIMEN ESPECIAL DE PENSIONES DE COMUNICACIONES: El Régimen de Pensiones de Comunicaciones es un régimen especial que se creó mediante Ley N° 4 de 23 de setiembre de 1940. Los destinatarios originales fueron “Los servidores del Gobierno de la República en el ramo de Comunicaciones (Correos, Telégrafos, Teléfonos y Radios Nacionales), excepto los telegrafistas y mensajeros del Ferrocarril [Dirección1] , que se hallaren en las circunstancias que en seguida se puntualizan, tendrán derecho al auxilio del Estado conforme a los artículos siguientes”(art. 1°). Esa ley estableció dos tipos de pensión, la ordinaria y la extraordinaria. Los requisitos para gozar de una pensión ordinaria son: tener 30 años de servicios y 50 o más años de edad. Así se colige del artículo 2° que estipula: "Los funcionarios que tengan treinta años de servicio y cincuenta o más años de edad, tendrán derecho a solicitar su pensión con la cantidad igual al promedio de los sueldos devengados durante los doce meses anteriores a su solicitud". El requisito para acceder a la pensión extraordinaria, en cuanto al tiempo de servicio, es de un mínimo de 10 años. Al respecto, el artículo 3 indicaba: "Tendrán derecho a pensionarse, con una dotación equivalente al producto del treintavo del promedio de los sueldos devengados durante los doce meses anteriores a su solicitud multiplicado por el número de años servidos, quienes no tengan treinta años de servicio ni cincuenta de edad, pero que hubieran servido por más de diez años y se encontraren, por enfermedad debidamente comprobada, imposibilitados de modo absoluto y permanente para continuar en sus funciones. Tendrán ese mismo derecho los que fueren separados de su cargo o lo hubieran sido en los dos años anteriores a la emisión de esta ley, sin su voluntad y sin haber incurrido en falta graves que justificara esa separación". La ley de comentario, en el artículo 7 regulaba la forma de computar los años de servicio, al señalar: “Para el cómputo del tiempo servido no es preciso que los servicios hayan sido prestados en forma continua; basta que lo hayan sido en el ramo de Comunicaciones (Correos, Telégrafos, Radios Nacionales o Teléfonos), aún en diferentes cargos. Los servicios en otros ramos de la Administración Pública se tomarán en cuenta, hasta por un lapso de 10 años, cuando el solicitante del beneficio, o su causahabiente, demuestre que el último tiempo de servicio lo ha sido en el ramo de Comunicaciones y por un lapso no menor de 5 años”. (Lo resaltado no está en el original). Esa ley sufrió adiciones y varias modificaciones. Así, el 2 de enero de 1970 se emitió la Ley N° 4513 de 2 de enero de 1970, con el objetivo de regular el traslado de los funcionarios, asegurándoles sus garantías laborales hasta el momento en que se acogieran a su pensión, esto debido a la automatización y mecanización de los servicios que explotaban las entidades encargadas del servicio de Telégrafo, Teléfonos y Radios Nacionales. Se creó mediante esa ley, artículo 4, una excepción a la regla de los 30 años de servicio y 50 de edad. Esta excepción comprendía a todos aquellos trabajadores del Departamento de Comunicaciones del Ministerio de Gobernación, Casa Presidencial, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública y Ministerio de Transportes que no pudiesen ser reubicados, con motivo de la automatización de los servicios en comunicaciones, por causas excepcionales y que tuviesen 20 años de servicios. En esos casos el Gobierno debía pensionarlos con el 80% del salario promedio devengado en los 5 años anteriores al despido por la causa dicha. Ese artículo (4 de la Ley 4513), decía: “Aquellos trabajadores del Departamento de Comunicaciones del Ministerio de Gobernación, Casa Presidencial, Ministerio de Seguridad Pública y Ministerio de Transportes que no fueren utilizados por la empresa al producirse el traspaso de servicios, serán ocupados por el Gobierno Central en otros Departamentos de la Administración Pública, en funciones de oficina similares a las que están desarrollando, con las mismas dotaciones y derechos adquiridos y se mantendrán en tal situación hasta que completen sus períodos para pensionarse. Quienes no puedan ser reubicados por causas excepcionales, a juicio del Poder Ejecutivo, y tengan de veinte a veinticinco años de servicio, el Gobierno los pensionará con el 80% del promedio de los salarios devengados durante los últimos cinco años; y a quienes tengan más de veinticinco años de servicios, con el 100% del promedio de los salarios devengados durante los últimos cinco años”. (El destacado no es del original). Como puede notarse, fue una excepción a la regla establecida por el numeral 2 de la Ley N° 4 y tenía destinatarios específicos. Mediante Ley N° 6611 de 13 de agosto de 1981, se reformaron los artículos 1°, 4° y 7° de la Ley 4513. El artículo 4° quedó redactado en los siguientes términos: “En razón de la automatización y mecanización de los servicios, o el traspaso a otra empresa o institución, a los servidores que así lo deseen -con la anuencia del respectivo Ministro- y que tengan de veinte a veinticinco años de servicio, el Gobierno los pensionará con el ochenta por ciento del promedio de los salarios de los últimos doce meses, y a los que tengan más de veinticinco años de servicio el Gobierno los pensionará con el ciento por ciento del promedio de los salarios de los últimos doce meses.En ambos casos, estas pensiones se concederán por medio de la ley Nº 4 del 23 de setiembre de 1940 y sus reformas, con todos los beneficios contenidos en ella”. (El destacado es de quien redacta). Como puede notarse, con esa reforma se exige la “anuencia del trabajador y el permiso el Ministro”, además de los 20 años mínimos en el Departamento de Comunicaciones. La Ley N° 7015, de 22 de noviembre de 1985, amplió la cobertura del Régimen de Pensiones de Comunicaciones, al incluir como destinatarios de ese régimen a todos los servidores de la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía. Esto se dispuso mediante el artículo 108 que decía: “Podrán acogerse al régimen de pensiones de Comunicaciones todos los servidores de la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía, en los mismos términos establecidos en la ley N° 4 del 23 de setiembre de 1940 y sus reformas, con excepción de lo dispuesto en el último párrafo del artículo 7 de la citada ley. Las cuotas aportadas por estos servidores a otro régimen de pensión serán trasladadas al régimen de Comunicaciones". O sea, que no se varió la regla general de los 30 años de servicios y 50 de edad, lo que era razonable, porque los de la administración central del citado Ministerio no corrían el riesgo de imposibilidad de reubicación por efectos de la automatización de los servicios de comunicaciones. Además, nótese que la Ley N° 4 se aplicaría con excepción de lo dispuesto en el último párrafo del artículo 7, o sea, el que se refiere a la exigencia de haber laborado al menos en los últimos 5 años en la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación, para computarles hasta 10 años de servicios en otros ramos de la Administración Pública. La Ley N° 7040, artículo 40, inciso 29, de 25 de abril de 1986, creó condiciones especiales para acogerse al régimen de pensiones para los servidores de la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía, pues permitió pensionarse con 20 años de servicio en ese Ministerio, sin el límite mínimo de 50 años de edad y no exigiendo 5 años de servicios en ese sector para computar servicios prestados en otros ramos de la Administración Pública, al disponer: “Podrán acogerse al Régimen de Pensiones de Comunicaciones, todos los servidores de la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía, en los mismos términos establecidos en la ley N° 4 del 23 de setiembre de 1940 y sus reformas, con excepción del artículo 2 y lo dispuesto en el último párrafo del artículo 7 de la citada ley, que no se aplicarán. Además, podrán acogerse a lo dispuesto en las leyes número 4513 de 2 de enero de 1970 y número 6611 de 22 de setiembre de 1981. Las cuotas aportadas por estos servidores a otro régimen de pensiones serán trasladadas al Régimen de Pensiones de Comunicaciones". (Lo destacado es de quien redacta). Con la Ley N° 7097, del 18 de agosto de 1988, en su numeral 82, redujo la cobertura de la Ley de Pensiones de Comunicaciones, dejando fuera de su protección a los servidores de la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía, al disponer lo siguiente: “Deróganse el artículo 108, de la Ley Nº 7015, de 29 de noviembre de 1985 y el artículo 40 inciso 29), de la Ley 7040, del 25 de abril de 1986. Los empleados de la Administración Central del Ministerio de Gobernación que, a la promulgación de esta ley, estén cotizando para el régimen de pensiones de comunicaciones, podrán acogerse a sus beneficios". (El resaltado no es del original). De esta forma se garantizó a los empleados de la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación, una cobertura temporal, quedando imposibilitados para optar a la pensión bajo el Régimen de Comunicaciones y en los términos de la norma 29 de la Ley 7040 (con 20 años de servicios). Los que venían cotizando para ese régimen les quedó la opción de acogerse al mismo, pero como es lógico, sólo pudieron hacerlo con 20 años si los cumplieron dentro de los dieciocho meses siguientes a la derogatoria o con los requisitos del artículo 2 de la Ley N° 4, en caso contrario. La incidencia en el Régimen de Pensiones de Comunicaciones del artículo 82 de la Ley 7097, de 18 de agosto de 1988, concluyó con la anulación decretada por la Sala Constitucional mediante el Voto Nº 2136-91, dictado a las 14 horas del 23 de octubre de 1991 y publicado en el Boletín Judicial Nº 232 del 4 de diciembre de ese año. Al dimensionar el voto, la Sala dispuso que los efectos eran "retroactivos y declarativos a la fecha de vigencia de las normas anuladas, sin perjuicio de aquellos derechos adquiridos de buena fe, respecto de aquellas personas que actualmente estén disfrutando de los beneficios que otorgaban esas normas y de aquellos otros derechos nacidos con anterioridad a la primera publicación a que alude el artículo 90, párrafo primero de la Ley que regula a esta jurisdicción, se hayan o no reclamado, o declarado el reconocimiento o comenzado a percibir el monto de la jubilación". Otro suceso normativo de interés para el caso que nos ocupa ocurrió el 8 de julio de 1992, fecha en que se dictó la Ley N° 7302, denominada “Ley de Creación del Régimen General de Pensiones con cargo al Presupuesto Nacional”, la cual entró en vigencia el 15 de julio de ese año, respetando los derechos adquiridos de aquellas personas que amparadas a los regímenes especiales, como el de Comunicaciones, cumplieran los requisitos para jubilarse. Esta ley instauró un Régimen General, a través del cual se uniformaron los diversos sistemas de jubilaciones y pensiones que tenían como base la prestación de servicios al Estado (con excepción del Régimen del Poder Judicial y del Magisterio Nacional) y cuyo pago estaba a cargo del Presupuesto Nacional. De esa forma se pretendió superar las diferencias existentes entre los diferentes regímenes, para evitar tratamiento privilegiado para algunos servidores públicos, lo que venía generando descontento en otros sectores. En el artículo 4 fijó los requisitos para obtener la jubilación en los siguientes términos: “Tendrán derecho a acogerse a la jubilación: a) Los servidores que tengan al menos sesenta años de edad, que hayan servido al Estado y cotizado para el régimen especial al que pertenezcan al menos por treinta años; b) Los servidores que tengan más de sesenta y cinco años de edad y que hayan servido y cotizado para el régimen especial al que pertenezcan por más de veinte años…”. En el artículo 41, esa ley derogó, entre otras, “...todas las disposiciones de las leyes que regulan los diferentes regímenes especiales de pensiones, que se le opongan.”. (El destacado no es del original), entre las que estaba la de Comunicaciones. Asimismo, en su transitorio II dispuso que quienes a la entrada en vigencia de la ley reunieran los requisitos para adquirir derecho a la pensión, según lo estableciera el régimen especial correspondiente,“conservarán su derecho a pensionarse al amparo de esa normativa especial”, y; en el transitorio III estableció que “Aquellas personas, cuya edad para pensionarse o jubilarse quede establecida a los sesenta años y que, a la entrada en vigencia de esta Ley, sean o hayan sido servidores de los regímenes contemplados en esta norma, podrán descontar de la edad de retiro un año por cada dos de los años servidos y cotizados para la Administración Pública. En todo caso, para poder pensionarse o jubilarse, se requerirá tener un mínimo de cincuenta y cinco años de edad y los años servidos que determine su régimen. No obstante, a quienes al entrar en vigencia esta Ley les falten menos de dieciocho meses para poder pensionarse o jubilarse según los requisitos originales de la legislación que se deroga, podrán pensionarse o jubilarse al cumplir aquellos requisitos, pero en este caso deberán cotizar con el catorce por ciento (14%) del monto de su pensión hasta cumplir los sesenta años de edad, fecha a partir de la cual continuarán cotizando conforme les corresponda según la presente Ley...” (El resaltado no está en el original). Finalmente, el 24 de abril de 1998 se dictó la Ley N° 7768 (Ley de Correos), publicada en La Gaceta N° 103 del 29 de mayo de 1998, vigente a partir del 29 de agosto de ese año. Esta ley derogó, en su artículo 18, inciso d), la Ley de Jubilaciones y Pensiones de Comunicaciones, N° 4, de 23 de setiembre de 1940, respetando los derechos de quienes dentro de los dieciocho meses posteriores a su vigencia cumplieran los requisitos establecidos originalmente. Así se desprende del Transitorio VII, que dice: “Los servidores que hayan cotizado para el Régimen de Pensiones de Comunicaciones, creado por la Ley de Jubilaciones y Pensiones de Comunicaciones, No. 4, de 23 de setiembre de 1940, quedarán incluidos en el Régimen de Invalidez, Vejez y Muerte que administra la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social(...).Quienes dentro de los dieciocho meses posteriores a la vigencia de esta ley cumplan con los requisitos para adquirir el derecho a la pensión por vejez o invalidez, del Régimen de Pensiones de Comunicaciones, podrán pensionarse en las condiciones indicadas en la Ley de Jubilaciones y Pensiones de Comunicaciones, No. 4, de 23 de setiembre de 1940 aquí derogada”. (El resaltado no está en el original). Con esa regulación se permitió la aplicación transitoria (del 29 de agosto de 1998 a 29 de febrero de 2000), de la citada ley (N° 4) y de la 4513 para todos los servidores en ella contemplados. Resta, entonces por definir si el actor logró quedar cubierto por los efectos de esas leyes, antes de su derogatoria o en el plazo de la transitoriedad indicado. IV.- ANÁLISIS DE LA SITUACIÓN FÁCTICA DEL CASO EN ESTUDIO: Quedó probado que el recurrente nació el 19 de julio de 1953 (folio 185); laboró en el Consejo Nacional de Producción desde el 29 de marzo de 1970 hasta el 03 de enero de 1971 (folio 185); a partir del 01 de abril de 1971 en la Administración Pública Central (folios 154 a 156), en varios Ministerios; para el Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía desde noviembre de 1984 al 20 de octubre de 1993 (folios 155 y 156), periodo en el que sólo sirvió, en la Administración Central de ese Ministerio, de noviembre de 1984 al 1° de abril de 1986, pues de allí pasó al programa de Migración y Extranjería (folio 156 en relación con el 165 y 169 de los autos). También se tiene por probado que cotizó al fondo de Pensiones de Comunicaciones desde 1° de enero de 1986 hasta el 23 de noviembre de 1993. De la situación fáctica antes señalada se concluye, que el accionante no pudo adquirir el derecho a una pensión del Régimen de Comunicaciones con base en las leyes Números 7015 y 7040, porque si bien laboró en la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía, de noviembre de 1984 al mes de abril de 1986, cuando entró en vigencia el primero de esos cuerpos normativos, que le permitió el ingreso al régimen general de Comunicaciones, también lo es que debía cumplir con los requisitos previstos en el artículo 2 de la Ley Nº 4, pues a su ingreso (noviembre de 1984) no lo amparó, hasta ese momento, la Ley 4513 de 2 de enero de 1970 y su reforma por la 6611 de 13 de agosto de 1981, porque no laboraba en el Departamento de Comunicaciones del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía. Es con la entrada en vigencia de la Ley 7040 que, de haber laborado veinte años durante la vigencia de esa ley, pudo haberse jubilado con el 80% del salario promedio de los últimos cinco años de servicios (sin el requisito de los 50 años de edad), pero ese supuesto de hecho no se cumplió entre abril de 1986 y agosto de 1988 en que estuvo vigente el artículo 29 de la referida ley (7040), la cual fue derogada por la Ley 7097. Con la declaratoria de inconstitucionalidad de esa ley (7040), de la 7015 y la 7097 del 1 de setiembre de 1988, por medio del voto Nº 2136-91, quedó fuera de la cobertura del Régimen de Comunicaciones, porque no logró cumplir con los requisitos previstos por el artículo 2 (30 años de servicios y 50 de edad) dentro de los dieciocho meses siguientes a la primera publicación de la acción que generó ese voto. Es cierto que la Ley 7040 de 25 de abril de 1986, que permitió pensionarse con 20 años de servicios y el traslado al Régimen de Comunicaciones de cuotas aportadas a otro régimen de pensiones, lo que implicaba el reconocimiento de tiempo servido en otros entes públicos fuera del sector central de dicho Ministerio. También es cierto que se mantuvo la obligación de laborar en el régimen de pertenencia por 20 años; lo que se colige de la relación entre los artículos 2° y 7°, párrafo primero, de la Ley N° 4, del régimen especial relacionado con ésta, que se deriva de la Ley N° 4513 del 2 de enero de 1970, que a su vez fue reformada por la N° 6611 del 13 de agosto de 1981 y de las Leyes 7015 y 7040. De las pruebas aportadas a los autos queda claro que ese supuesto de hecho (tiempo de servicios en el régimen de pertenencia que exigía la ley) no se cumplió en este caso, pues aunque siguió cotizando para el Régimen de Comunicaciones, después de haber dejado de laborar en la administración central del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía (folios 155 al 158 de los autos), no logró reunir 20 años de servicios en el régimen de pertenencia. Requisito que tampoco cumplió dentro de los dieciocho meses posteriores a la derogatoria de las normas 108 de la Ley N° 7015 y 29 de la Ley N° 7040 (artículo 40), lo que ocurrió por disposición del artículo 82 de la Ley N° 7097, de 18 de agosto de 1988. El derecho reclamado tampoco encuentra sustento en los votos de la Sala Constitucional números 2136-91, de las catorce horas el veintitrés de octubre de mil novecientos noventa y uno, que anuló las normas contenidas en los artículos 108 de la Ley 7015, 40, inciso 29 de la 7040 y 82 de la Ley 7097, porque el recurrente no logró reunir los requisitos de tiempo de servicios en el régimen de pertenencia que las mismas exigían por referencia al artículo 7, párrafo primero de la Ley N° 4, supra citada. Tampoco encuentra sustento legal en la Ley N° 7302 del 8 de julio de 1992 pues, como se indicó en el considerando precedente, esta derogó “…todas las disposiciones de las leyes que regulan los diferentes regímenes especiales de pensiones, que se le opongan”, dejando a salvo los casos de quienes estando bajo esos sistemas especiales, como el de Comunicaciones, reunieran los requisitos para adquirir el derecho, a la entrada en vigencia de dicha ley (la Ley 7302, transitorio II) o de las personas a quienes les faltara menos de 18 meses para cumplir con los requisitos originales de la legislación derogada por la 7302, contados desde la vigencia de ésta. De la correlación de esas disposiciones legales con la situación de hecho que presenta este caso, no queda ninguna duda que el actor tampoco logró cumplir con las exigencias normativas que se desprenden de esa Ley Marco de Pensiones. En el año 1993 se emitió el voto número 5476 de las dieciocho horas tres minutos del veintisiete de octubre de 1993, donde la Sala Constitucional reiteró que la jubilación es un derecho constitucional y fundamental de todo trabajador y que como tal debe ser reconocido a todo ser humano en condiciones de igualdad y sin discriminación alguna. Que hay un derecho general de pertenencia desde que se ingresa a un régimen, pero el derecho a pensionarse bajo éste se adquiere cuando se cumple con los requisitos que exige la normativa que lo regula. Que las condiciones específicas de un régimen, como son la edad y los años para jubilarse pueden variar en el futuro y afectar a los beneficiarios que les falten más de 18 meses para cumplir con los requisitos de la normativa que se modifica, pero el derecho de pertenecer al régimen y a jubilarse en las mismas condiciones generales, no puede ser modificada por haberse consolidado como derecho adquirido (ver considerando II del citado voto). Como puede notarse, la Sala Constitucional está partiendo de la permanencia de un régimen. Agrega esa Sala que para jubilarse con los requisitos de 20 o 25 años de servicios en la Administración Central del Ministerio de Gobernación, en el primer caso con pensión del 80% del promedio de los últimos doce salarios y del 100% en el segundo caso, se requería haber cumplido esos requisitos durante la vigencia del artículo 29 de la Ley N° 7040, norma que como ya vimos fue anulada mediante voto número 2136 del 23 de octubre de 1991; requisito que, como ya se indicó antes, no logró cumplir el actor. Del voto N° 5476-93, se desprende que, quienes siendo funcionarios de la Administración Central del Ministerio de Gobernación y Policía no lograron pensionarse durante la vigencia de la Ley 7040, estando vigente la Ley N° 4 debían cumplir con las exigencias previstas por el artículo 2 de éste, sea con 30 años de servicios y 50 de edad. Es claro, entonces, que la Sala partió del supuesto de que el régimen seguía vigente. Sin embargo, como la Ley N° 4 fue derogada por la número 7768 (artículo 18, inciso d), de 24 de abril de 1998, vigente a partir del 29 de agosto de ese año; dispuso que quienes no cumplieren los requisitos dentro de los dieciocho meses posteriores a su vigencia (a finales de febrero del 2000) y que hubiesen cotizado para ese régimen, debía pasar al de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (Transitorio VII); o sea, que en casos como el que se analiza en este proceso, el derecho fundamental a la jubilación se mantiene, pero por el régimen de la Caja, pues el actor no logró cumplir con los requisitos previstos por el artículo 2 de la Ley N° 4, antes del primero de marzo del 2000. Consecuentes con lo expuesto, no se aprecian los errores que el recurrente le atribuye a la sentencia del Ad-quem."

Requirements for a Pension under the Communications RegimeRequisitos para pensión bajo el Régimen de Comunicaciones

Stay Informed Mantente Informado

Email Updates Actualizaciones por Correo

WhatsApp Channel Canal de WhatsApp