CMNT_TITLE

Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952 (No. 102) - Mauritania (RATIFICATION: 1968)

Other comments on C102

Observation

Direct Request

DISPLAYINFrench - SpanishAlle anzeigen

Level and regular review of benefits

In several communications, the latest dated 6 June 2012, the Association of Pensioners of the National Social Security Fund (CNSS) denounces systematic violations by the CNSS of national laws and regulations. The Association indicates that the CNSS has not reviewed the amounts of the pensions of some 17,000 pensioners, whose pensions were awarded prior to 2005, despite the decision by the Director-General of Legislation of the Ministry of the Public Service that the increase in pensions following the rise in the minimum wage in 2006 shall benefit all CNSS pensioners (section 54(4) of Decree No. 008/2006 of 9 January 2006 increasing the minimum wage (SMIG)).

In its report, the Government indicates that these allegations are entirely unfounded. Under the terms of Decree No. 008/2006, the CNSS reviewed pensions awarded after 1 January 2005, resulting in the minimum pension rising from 14,145 to 37,800 Mauritanian ouguiyas (MRO) a quarter. Furthermore, in order to take into account the complaints by pensioners whose pensions were awarded prior to 2005, in January 2009 the CNSS decided to increase the pensions of the beneficiaries concerned by 30 per cent, which resulted in an increase in the CNSS’s expenditure of around MRO130 million. The Government adds that these increases were made despite the fact that the old-age pensions branch has been in deficit for over a decade, due to the massive arrival of new pensioners. The CNSS cannot fail to comply with the legal texts in force or escape supervision by the competent authorities. The Committee notes that the adjustment of the level of the minimum benefit for pensions awarded after 2005 by around 150 per cent, while limiting this adjustment to 30 per cent for pensions awarded prior to 2005, results in a significant difference of treatment between these two categories of pensioners. The Committee therefore requests the Government to indicate the reasons for this difference of treatment between the two categories of beneficiaries in relation to the adjustment of their pensions.

[The Government is asked to reply in detail to the present comments in 2013.]