Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 22:53:58 GMT -5
In the light of articles of the CF and of the ADCT does the payment of common credit before the alimony result in a break in the chronological order of payment of precatório authorizing the issuance of an order for the sequestration of public resources? This is the controversy that the Federal Supreme Court will define and that will serve as a parameter for other courts. The court's Virtual Plenary recognized the existence of a general repercussion on the matter discussed in the Extraordinary Appeal which deals with the possibility of precedence or not of payment of nonfood court orders over food court orders that have not yet been fulfilled.
According to minister Ricardo Lewandowski who proposed the recognition of the general repercussion of the matter “it is also true that the discussion is also relevant from an economic point of view since the definition of the topic could have a relevant financial impact on the budget of public entities”.
The appeal was filed by the State of São Paulo through its BTC Number Data attorney general against a decision handed down by the Superior Court of Justice which understood that the payment of any portion of the credits included in article of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act ADCT before full satisfaction of food credits there is a break in the chronological order of payment of court orders established by article of the Federal Constitution.
The STJ ruling recognized the legal possibility of establishing two distinct orders of court orders with absolute preference for those of a food nature over those of a common nature.
The State of São Paulo alleges on the contrary an offense against articles of the CF and of the ADCT. According to him there was no break in the chronological order of payment of food court orders considering that food court orders from are still being paid.
The appellant points out that the STF in the judgment of Direct Unconstitutionality Action recognized the existence of two chronological orders relating to court orders food and nonfood subject to different payment rules. Thus only breaking the chronological order within the same class food or nonfood would lead to the sequestration of public income.
When raising in preliminary terms the general repercussion of the constitutional matter discussed in the case the São Paulo government recalled that in an injunction granted in Security Suspension the Presidency of the STF recognized the economic and legal relevance of the matter in which the same topic was discussed. . With information from the STF Press Office.
According to minister Ricardo Lewandowski who proposed the recognition of the general repercussion of the matter “it is also true that the discussion is also relevant from an economic point of view since the definition of the topic could have a relevant financial impact on the budget of public entities”.
The appeal was filed by the State of São Paulo through its BTC Number Data attorney general against a decision handed down by the Superior Court of Justice which understood that the payment of any portion of the credits included in article of the Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act ADCT before full satisfaction of food credits there is a break in the chronological order of payment of court orders established by article of the Federal Constitution.
The STJ ruling recognized the legal possibility of establishing two distinct orders of court orders with absolute preference for those of a food nature over those of a common nature.
The State of São Paulo alleges on the contrary an offense against articles of the CF and of the ADCT. According to him there was no break in the chronological order of payment of food court orders considering that food court orders from are still being paid.
The appellant points out that the STF in the judgment of Direct Unconstitutionality Action recognized the existence of two chronological orders relating to court orders food and nonfood subject to different payment rules. Thus only breaking the chronological order within the same class food or nonfood would lead to the sequestration of public income.
When raising in preliminary terms the general repercussion of the constitutional matter discussed in the case the São Paulo government recalled that in an injunction granted in Security Suspension the Presidency of the STF recognized the economic and legal relevance of the matter in which the same topic was discussed. . With information from the STF Press Office.