Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 1:03:02 GMT -5
There are several situations that do not require the use of court orders even resulting from final court decisions that determine obligations to pay against the Public Treasury.
Spacca
A specific case was already covered in this column in August and has now been confirmed by the STF when analyzing Topic in General Repercussion.
In the case analyzed above a property had been expropriated for public purposes in order to allow the State to use it for some purpose of public interest. The basic rule is item XXIV article of the Constitution which constitutes a fundamental guarantee that “the law will establish the procedure for expropriation due to public need or utility or for social interest through fair and prior compensation in money except in cases provided for in this Constitution” .
Decree-Law allows the public authority to CG Leads have provisional permission to take possession of the asset as long as there is urgency and the arbitrated amount is deposited “c” article with the owner of the expropriated asset being able to withdraw up to of this deposit even if you disagree with the assessment and decide to challenge it in court article .
Once it is judged that the amount deposited was not fair and must be supplemented should this additional amount be paid through a court order? Absolutely not I stated on that occasion as the value must be fair and prior as prescribed by the Constitution.
The words fair and prior have specific meanings which may even be fluid and imprecise in some senses but they have a central core in their terms.
Fair from the perspective of positive law is what has been determined by decision of the Judiciary whether you like what has been decided or not. Once final and unappealable the decision given by a competent judge will be considered fair and other rules relating to the matter contradictory full defense etc. will be considered fair. One can even discuss in the academic sphere the justice of what was decided but within the legal system of positive law the decision that has become final will be considered fair .
Prior means antecedent something that occurs before some act or fact. In this case it means that the payment of fair compensation for expropriation must be made prior to its completion.
This same reasoning that I explained in was used in October by the STF when deciding on Topic in General Repercussion RE ..
Report by Sérgio Rodas in this ConJur exposed that the municipality of Juiz de Fora filed an action for expropriation for public utility of a property to build a hospital depositing the amount of R thousand and assumed possession of the property. The first instance decision set the value of the property at R. million with monetary correction late payment and compensatory interest and determined that the difference be supplemented by direct judicial deposit.
Spacca
A specific case was already covered in this column in August and has now been confirmed by the STF when analyzing Topic in General Repercussion.
In the case analyzed above a property had been expropriated for public purposes in order to allow the State to use it for some purpose of public interest. The basic rule is item XXIV article of the Constitution which constitutes a fundamental guarantee that “the law will establish the procedure for expropriation due to public need or utility or for social interest through fair and prior compensation in money except in cases provided for in this Constitution” .
Decree-Law allows the public authority to CG Leads have provisional permission to take possession of the asset as long as there is urgency and the arbitrated amount is deposited “c” article with the owner of the expropriated asset being able to withdraw up to of this deposit even if you disagree with the assessment and decide to challenge it in court article .
Once it is judged that the amount deposited was not fair and must be supplemented should this additional amount be paid through a court order? Absolutely not I stated on that occasion as the value must be fair and prior as prescribed by the Constitution.
The words fair and prior have specific meanings which may even be fluid and imprecise in some senses but they have a central core in their terms.
Fair from the perspective of positive law is what has been determined by decision of the Judiciary whether you like what has been decided or not. Once final and unappealable the decision given by a competent judge will be considered fair and other rules relating to the matter contradictory full defense etc. will be considered fair. One can even discuss in the academic sphere the justice of what was decided but within the legal system of positive law the decision that has become final will be considered fair .
Prior means antecedent something that occurs before some act or fact. In this case it means that the payment of fair compensation for expropriation must be made prior to its completion.
This same reasoning that I explained in was used in October by the STF when deciding on Topic in General Repercussion RE ..
Report by Sérgio Rodas in this ConJur exposed that the municipality of Juiz de Fora filed an action for expropriation for public utility of a property to build a hospital depositing the amount of R thousand and assumed possession of the property. The first instance decision set the value of the property at R. million with monetary correction late payment and compensatory interest and determined that the difference be supplemented by direct judicial deposit.