The procedures of the social security moratorium opened a controversy, which has already reached the Justice.
It is because the ANSeS, in Circular FP 22/23 of May 8, established that the forms of the moratorium must be signed by the person requesting the benefit in the delegation of the ANSeS (UDAI) "not being valid all those that are not those issued by the systems, or that are signed and certified, outside the scope of said UDAI".
From this requirement (that the application must be signed by the requesting holder and cannot be replaced by the attorney) the lawyer Verónica Barcarolo interpreted that they prevented her from acting fully as a proxy and filed a precautionary lawsuit in Justice.
On the basis of a series of grounds, Federal Court No. 2 of Santa Fe granted the requested precautionary measure. And it ordered the ANSeS to suspend the application of the circular as it provides in its first part "... signed individually by the holder ...", and in its last paragraph: "... require signature by the applicant...".
Consequently, it also ordered that attorney Barcarolo is empowered in her presentations before ANSES to act as a proxy for the elderly, requesting acceptance of the Social Security Debt Plan established by Law 27,705 ...".
Among other grounds, the Court stated that "with the issuance of this Circular, ANSES, on the one hand, could leave manifestly unprotected the passive class and the people who with this new Law No. 27705 intend to join the Social Security System, since by forcing them to carry out the entire procedure to obtain the benefit, In person and by themselves, it could put them in a state of helplessness and total uncertainty, since they are unable to access the advice of proven professionals in the field, which helps them to fully understand the scope of the documentation they subscribe ".
The ANSeS told Clarín that there is nothing in the Circular that affects the constitutional rights of lawyers or that could be interpreted as preventing them from their right to work.
They also pointed out that "as emerges from the judicial resolution, the plaintiff does not demonstrate that she has been prevented from initiating proceedings as a proxy, but that she bases her claim on an interpretation of the text of the Circular." And they concluded: "Lawyers have every right to work but we always remember that the procedure is simple, free and does not require intermediaries."