29. ANCEJUB-SUNAT appealed the abovementioned resolution and on September 1, 1992, the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court confirmed the decision of the first instance court7. The Chamber stated that the amparo action is not the “lawful and legitimate way” to nullify the effects of Legislative Decree No. 673, whose status is that of “Law from the Congress”8. 30. ANCEJUB-SUNAT filed a plea to nullify and on October 25, 1993, the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru issued a ruling declaring that the amparo action was well founded9. The Supreme Court declared the following: (…) [It is determined that it is] not applicable to former civil servants members of [SUNAT] the Petitioning Association entitled to receive a pension as discharged or retired staff as per Decree Law [20530], whose right has been recognized by the Third Temporary Provision of the Legislative Decree [673]; it was ordered that the right to their due pension adjusted according to the remunerations of [SUNAT] active servants be reinstated, and they be reimbursed for the increases they had not received as a consequence of the application of the abovementioned Third Temporary Provision of the Legislative Decree [673]10. 31. On June 25, 1996, the Constitutional Court issued a resolution indicating that “resolutions that are favorable to the petitioning parties filing amparo actions where the State is a party, pending appeal and review by the Constitutional Guarantee Court shall be deemed final and binding.”11 The Constitutional Court returned the court files to the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru so as to cause its execution12. On October 11, 1996, the file was received by Fifth Civil Court of Lima13 to that end. 32. On January 21, 1997, the Judge Specializing in Social Security Matters of Lima decided to notify “the State Attorney in charge of the MEF affairs [Ministry of Economy and Finance], the ONP [Social Security Administration], and (…) the Minister of Economy so that the final supreme order dated October [25] [1996] (sic) and also ordered by the Constitutional Court on June [25][1996] are complied with within the terms imposed by the law.”14 33. On February 18, 1997, the MEF requested that said resolution be deemed null and void15. On April 8, 1997, the Judge Specializing in Social Security Matters of Lima declared it null and void in view of the following considerations: (…) the final supreme order “declares that the Third Temporary Provision of the Legislative Decree [673] is not applicable, and it is precisely that temporary provision that establishes that this provision is made in the [MEF] proposed budget, transferring contributions to the service of pensions, remunerations and/or similar payments due to SUNAT”; it declared the 7 Resolution issued by the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima on September 1, 1992 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 8 Resolution issued by the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima on September 1, 1992 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 9 Judgment issued by Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru on October 25, 1993 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 10 Judgment issued by Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru on October 25, 1993 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 11 Resolution issued by the Constitutional Court on June 25, 1996 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 12 Resolution issued by the Constitutional Court on June 25, 1996 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). Resolution issued by the Judge of the Fifth Civil Court of Lima on October 11, 1996 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 13 14 Resolution issued by the Judge Specializing in Social Security Matters of Lima on January 21, 1997 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 15 Plea to nullify, filed by Ministry of Economy [MEF] on February 18, 1997 (Attached to the State’s writ dated May 27, 2005). 5