WILLEMSTAD – A possible gap in Curaçao's pension legislation has left a former government employee in limbo over his retirement benefits for several years, prompting the Ombudsman to criticize the government for failing to act despite being aware of the issue since 2020.
In a recently published report, Ombudsman Keursly Concincion concluded that the government has not handled the matter with due diligence and has failed to respond adequately to the former civil servant's requests, despite repeated appeals.
The case involves a former government employee who joined the Island Territory of Curaçao in 1985 and left public service in 2020. According to a pension statement issued by the General Pension Fund of Curaçao (APC), he would be eligible to retire at age 60. However, when he applied for early retirement, APC rejected the request, apparently because of a gap in the applicable pension legislation.
The issue appears to stem from transitional provisions introduced when the retirement age was raised to 65. Article 110c of the National Pension Ordinance allows certain government employees to retire from age 60 with a 6 percent reduction in benefits for each year they retire early.
However, the provision does not explicitly mention former government employees—those who have already left public service before reaching retirement age. Other transitional provisions in the same law do specifically refer to both active and former employees, creating uncertainty about whether ex-government workers qualify for early retirement under Article 110c.
The Ombudsman did not rule on the legal interpretation of the pension law itself. Instead, the report focuses on the government's handling of the issue.
According to the findings, APC informed the government about the legislative omission on November 5, 2020. One year later, legal advice was submitted recommending that the legislation be amended and that APC begin paying eligible pensions even before the formal legal correction was completed.
Despite those recommendations, no legislative solution has been adopted.
The former government employee formally asked the Minister of Governance, Planning and Public Service in June 2023 to correct his pension commencement date. He never received a response.
The Ombudsman found that subsequent letters, reminders and even the Ombudsman's preliminary findings also went unanswered by the minister. Because the government failed to respond, the Ombudsman considered the complainant's factual account to be uncontested.
Concincion concluded that the minister failed to act promptly and did not treat the complainant fairly or properly. He also warned that the legal gap could affect other former government employees who find themselves in similar circumstances.
The Ombudsman has given the minister eight weeks to issue a reasoned decision on the complaint and address the matter. The report stops short of ordering a specific outcome regarding the pension claim but emphasizes the need for the government to resolve the legal uncertainty after years of inaction.