Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 4:21:12 GMT -5
The installment payment of pending court orders on the date of promulgation of Constitutional Amendment / constitutes an attack on the independence of the Judiciary and violates the material res judicata. With this understanding , the Dean of the Federal Supreme Court, Minister Celso de Mello, decided to jointly judge the precautionary measures in two Direct Unconstitutionality Actions that requested the suspension of article of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act (ADCT), introduced in the original text by EC / The provision allowed payment of court orders outstanding on the date of promulgation of the amendment, in installments, within ten years.
Celso de Mello followed the basis of the vote of the case's rapporteur, minister Neri da Silveira, now retired. “In a situation like this, changing the system of the Constitution, in order for the debtor Public Treasury to be able to pay these 'pending court orders', in 'annual, equal and successive installments, within a maximum period of ten years', harms not only the acquired right, resulting from the constitutional Austria Phone Numbers List norm of article and § , in the original wording, of the beneficiary of the court order, as it immediately disrespects the perfect legal act and res judicata”, highlighted the dean, citing the rapporteur's vote.
Therefore, according to Celso de Mello, the device violates material res judicata, violating the separation of powers and the requirement of legal certainty. “If it is true that the rule in question, relating to pending court orders, does not invalidate the res judicata , it is no less accurate, however, that the clause now questioned compromises the very decision that, underlying the issuance of the pending court order, is supported , regarding the quality of its effects, by the authority of res judicata, which would violate the postulate of separation of powers, in addition to affecting an essential value to the democratic rule of law, which is the requirement of legal certainty.
Celso de Mello followed the basis of the vote of the case's rapporteur, minister Neri da Silveira, now retired. “In a situation like this, changing the system of the Constitution, in order for the debtor Public Treasury to be able to pay these 'pending court orders', in 'annual, equal and successive installments, within a maximum period of ten years', harms not only the acquired right, resulting from the constitutional Austria Phone Numbers List norm of article and § , in the original wording, of the beneficiary of the court order, as it immediately disrespects the perfect legal act and res judicata”, highlighted the dean, citing the rapporteur's vote.
Therefore, according to Celso de Mello, the device violates material res judicata, violating the separation of powers and the requirement of legal certainty. “If it is true that the rule in question, relating to pending court orders, does not invalidate the res judicata , it is no less accurate, however, that the clause now questioned compromises the very decision that, underlying the issuance of the pending court order, is supported , regarding the quality of its effects, by the authority of res judicata, which would violate the postulate of separation of powers, in addition to affecting an essential value to the democratic rule of law, which is the requirement of legal certainty.