Buenos Aires, Argentina. The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation set aside a labor court sentence, considering that the Labor Chamber exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering the capitalization of interest and multiplying an indemnification that had not been requested. The highest court thus ratified its criterion of preventing the capitalization of interest in dismissal cases and understood that the National Appeals Court of Labor committed an undue reformatio in pejus that harmed the co-defendants, as the Argentine News Agency could learn. The case originated when the X Chamber of Labor excluded the extra hours item from the sentence and ordered the application of interest according to minute 2764/2022, which implied annual capitalizations from the notification of the claim to the settlement of the sentence. The Court held that this decision transgressed the competence limits of the appellate court, by ruling on an issue that had not been submitted to its review, affecting the principle of congruence and the guarantees of defense and property. According to the ruling, the first instance sentence had set interest rates according to the active rates provided in minutes 2601/2014, 2630/2016, and 2658/2017, and that point had only been questioned by the co-defendants to request its reduction. In this framework, the highest court considered that the application of minute 2764/2022 and the periodic capitalization of interest constituted an excess of jurisdiction, so it declared the complaint admissible, granted the extraordinary appeal and set aside the appealed sentence.
The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has recently issued rulings within the framework of what is provided in subsection c) of article 768 of the Civil and Commercial Code of the Nation, to set aside lower court rulings for considering that they deviated from the applicable legal regime (see, e.g., CSJN, "Oliva, Fabio Omar c/ COMA SA s/ dismissal" of 02/29/24; CSJN, "Fontaine, Juan Eduardo c/ Provincia ART SA s/ accident – special law" of 05/16/24; CSJN, "Lacuadra, Jonatan Daniel c/ DIRECTV Argentina SA and others s/ dismissal" of 08/13/24). The Superior Court of the City of Buenos Aires did the same regarding the Work Risk Regime and the application of the adjustment system. Coinciding with the activation of the labor reform project by the Executive Branch, litigation related to work accidents and diseases increased. In 2025, 134,000 labor lawsuits were initiated in Argentina, a figure that is 23 times higher than Chile's and 16 times higher than Spain's. The observation that arises is that there is a marked decoupling between the evolution of work accidents and that of lawsuits. While work accidents are decreasing, lawsuits remain high, which reflects the Argentine problem of labor lawsuits. The high level of lawsuits, interpreted in business circles, presents a risk for employers, which discourages job creation.
"Lawsuit Industry". Other numbers indicate that on average 80% of employees who initiate legal actions obtain a favorable ruling, but even so, they only get 55% of the amount in question. The Union of Work Risk Insurers (UART) stated that the remaining 45% dissipates in the costs of judicial intermediation. Within that percentage, the largest portion is explained by the litigation fee, the portion of what is obtained in the lawsuit that lawyers receive, which represents 14% of the judicial expense. The rest is divided between the plaintiff's lawyer's fees (11%), the experts (7%), and the company's lawyer's fees (8%). In turn, the second instance fees (3%) and the justice fee (2%) are added.
