O cabimento de indenização por danos morais ante a demora para análise de requerimento administrativo pelo INSS: análise da jurisprudência das turmas recursais da 5ª Região

Abstract

The present undergraduate thesis aims to analyze the jurisprudence of the Turmas Recursais of the 5ª Região regarding the admissibility of compensation for moral damages due to delays by the Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social (INSS) to analyze administrative benefit application. Through widely disseminated statistical data, it is possible to assess the context of overload and administrative delays within the autarchy pension. In this scenario, claimants often resort to the Judiciary to access social security and assistance benefits. Alongside benefit claims, it is common to encounter cases where the plaintiff also seeks compensation for moral damages, arguing that the administrative delay by the INSS has infringed upon their dignity. Thus, the investigation seeks to understand how the Turmas Recursais of the Juizados Especiais Federais of the 5ª Região have been positioning themselves regarding the admissibility of such compensation. To achieve this objective, bibliographic and documentary techniques are employed, along with the deductive method, forming a qualitative research approach. In conclusion, the identified legal uncertainty to which the plaintiff parties are submitted. Even in similar contexts with common untimeliness, some judges deem moral damages compensation appropriate, considering the sustenance nature of the claimed amount and the illegality of the delay. However, other magistrates interpret the situation as mere annoyance. Those who ruled in favor embraced the objectivist perspective regarding the nature of the State's civil liability for omissive conduct, in contrast to those who denied the request, aligning with the subjective liability view. Hence, there is an urgent need for the Superior Courts to harmonize jurisprudence regarding the admissibility of compensation for moral damages due to unreasonable delays by the INSS. Additionally, resolving the conflict between perspectives on the nature of the State's civil liability for omission is crucial, given the conflicting opinions of STF and STJ.