Post by nurnobisorker65 on Feb 11, 2024 3:44:22 GMT -5
was represented in the action by lawyer Daniella Maria Alves Tedeschi , founding partner of DMAT Advogados. For her, the decision confirms an entire historical jurisprudential construction of the Federal Supreme Court on political sanctions, such as, for example, Precedents 70, 323 and 547. "The STF historically prohibits the adoption of indirect coercive means for the collection of taxes, such as, for example, the cancellation of the taxpayer's state registration. We must celebrate the observance of this historical jurisprudence in favor of taxpayers by the Law No. 13,655/2018 added new provisions (from articles 20 to 30) to Decree-Law 4,657/42 (Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law), with the.
purpose stated in its preamble of providing greater legal certainty in relations between State and society and efficiency in the creation and application of public law. This article offers a reflection on the constitutional adequacy of article 28 of Lindb, in particular its compatibility with the provisions of article 37, §6, of CF/1988 . Furthermore, it discusses the interpretation that has prevailed in the jurisprudence of the TCU (Federal Audit Court) regarding the incidence of gross error in the Belgium Email List context of administrative and financial responsibility of public agents. This is what article 28 of the Lindb states: "the public agent will be personally responsible for his decisions or technical opinions in the case of intent or gross error" [1] . Here we take the concept of gross error already mentioned so many times in TCU jurisprudence, in the.
Sense of equating it with serious guilt, that is, resulting from a serious failure to observe the duty of care and zeal towards public affairs [2] . It should be noted, therefore, that the aforementioned provision practically inaugurates a new accountability regime by prescribing that the public agent will be responsible for his decisions in the case of intent or gross error. According to the lesson of Gustavo Binenbojm and André Cyrino, "the gross error is a dogmatic code that expresses how guilt must be valued so that the public agent can be held responsible" [3] . In this way, the (Banned word)essment of guilt, in which the gross error is found, begins to (Banned word)ume a decisive role in the imputation of the manager's responsibility. According.
purpose stated in its preamble of providing greater legal certainty in relations between State and society and efficiency in the creation and application of public law. This article offers a reflection on the constitutional adequacy of article 28 of Lindb, in particular its compatibility with the provisions of article 37, §6, of CF/1988 . Furthermore, it discusses the interpretation that has prevailed in the jurisprudence of the TCU (Federal Audit Court) regarding the incidence of gross error in the Belgium Email List context of administrative and financial responsibility of public agents. This is what article 28 of the Lindb states: "the public agent will be personally responsible for his decisions or technical opinions in the case of intent or gross error" [1] . Here we take the concept of gross error already mentioned so many times in TCU jurisprudence, in the.
Sense of equating it with serious guilt, that is, resulting from a serious failure to observe the duty of care and zeal towards public affairs [2] . It should be noted, therefore, that the aforementioned provision practically inaugurates a new accountability regime by prescribing that the public agent will be responsible for his decisions in the case of intent or gross error. According to the lesson of Gustavo Binenbojm and André Cyrino, "the gross error is a dogmatic code that expresses how guilt must be valued so that the public agent can be held responsible" [3] . In this way, the (Banned word)essment of guilt, in which the gross error is found, begins to (Banned word)ume a decisive role in the imputation of the manager's responsibility. According.
