In this case the question put to the Constitutional Court, in the scope of the concrete review of the constitutionality of certain legal provisions, concerned the constitutionality of the final part of Article 75(1) of Law No. 98/2009 of 4 September, which precludes the redemption of an annual life pension for incapacity of less than 30%, but more than six times the value of the minimum monthly guaranteed pay, even where the claimant so requests, that is, the scope of the review concerned the reasonability and proportionality of the (indirect) prohibition of total optional redemption, precluding such option for the claimant, leaving the capacity of the claimant to earn his/her living by having a regular employment practically unaffected.
After analysing the question, the Constitutional Court considered that there were no reasons to rule unconstitutional the solution establishing an exception to the relevance of the principle of priority of the autonomous will of the claimant
vis-à-vis the guarantee, in all situations, of pension of a discrete amount, given that he/she can earn his/her living, safeguarding any claimant, even those whose working capacity has not been significantly affected, from financial risks and, even, from the complete loss of compensation for injuries sustained.
In that connection, the Constitutional Court considered that the provision called into question, which prevents the employee to dispose of the compensation for accidents at work, is in line with the material and constitutional interest, based on the need to ensure a dignified subsistence of the injured employee, throughout his/her life and therefore, did not hold unconstitutional the rule contained in the final part of Article 75(1) of the Law of Accidents at Work (approved by Law No. 98/2009 of 4 September), which precludes the redemption of an annual life pension for incapacity of less than 30%, but more than six times the value of the minimum monthly guaranteed pay, even where the claimant so requests.