Cristina Kirchner is left without a judge: she wants to earn more than 22 million per month again

Amid the economic renaissance facing Argentina and with a firm conviction for corruption, Cristina Fernández de Kirchnerdemands the restitution of her suspended privilege pensions from Javier Milei's government before the judiciary. However, the case remains stalled:first a judge recused himself, then his replacement refused to take the case, and now the case returns to square one.

The former president filed a lawsuit against the National Social Security Administration (ANSES) to annul administrative resolutions 1092/2024 and 94/2025, issued by the current government, which suspended the payment of two pensions: hers as a former president and the one corresponding to her deceased husband, former president Néstor Kirchner. The total gross amount is $35,255,297.73, distributed in $19,645,844.41 for her position and $15,609,453.32 for the benefit derived from Néstor Kirchner.

In the lawsuit, Fernández de Kirchner's defense also requested a precautionary measure for the immediate restitution of those benefits while the core issue is solved. They argued that the former president "is inhibited and has no assets, any emolument entering her estate would be automatically frozen by the imposed inhibition, therefore, her monthly lifetime allocations are the only income that allows her to subsist."

The judicial claim was filed after the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Cassation confirmed, in November 2024, the conviction for corruption in the Vialidad case. Cristina was found guilty of the crime of fraudulent administration to the detriment of the State, with a sentence of six years in prison and perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

The former president had already turned to the Judiciary to defend her benefits in 2020, during Alberto Fernández's government. At that time, surrogate judge Ezequiel Pérez Nani ruled in her favor, without the ANSES—under the leadership of Fernanda Raverta—appealing the ruling. Now, however, the political context has changed, and the judicial decision could have other implications.

Judge Pérez Nani himself, who had previously ruled in her favor, decided to recuse himself from intervening again. He argued that he is shortlisted in a competition for a permanent judge position and that any decision could "be incorrectly interpreted as compromised with the selection process," which would put "the necessary impartiality in doubt."

The case was reassigned to Judge Karina Alonso Candi, who first rejected her colleague's recusal, stating that "the duty of judges to fulfill the entrusted function implies that sometimes it is necessary to address issues on which a certain criterion must be imposed." However, she ultimately also refused to take the case and returned it to the General Entry Desk of the Federal Social Security Chamber.