The Court of Auditors, in turn, maintained an offense against the constitutional competence of the institution, materialized by the decision that ruled the judgment unlawful
In the Precautionary Measure on Security Suspension (SS) 5.341, the STF’s understanding was reaffirmed, according to which the acts of the Courts of Auditors are subject to the appreciation and control of the Judiciary, based on the direct application of the principle of non-enforceability of jurisdiction, foreseen in article 5, XXXV, of the Federal Constitution “the law will not exclude injury or threat to law from the Judiciary’s assessment”.
The specific case was that of SS filed by a State Court of Auditors in the face of a partial decision by the Court of Justice issued in the writ of a writ of mandamus, which considered it illegal to suspend the execution of a contract between the law firm and municipality by the Court of Auditors, based on Law No. 13,655 / 2018, on legal certainty and efficiency in the creation and application of public law, due to the jurisprudence of the local Court of Auditors recognizing the uniqueness of the matter and the lawfulness of the legal fees provided for success clause.
The Court of Auditors, for its part, maintained an offense against the constitutional competence of the institution, materialized by the decision that ruled the judgment illegal, which had suspended the execution and payment of attorney fees stipulated in an administrative contract, signed due to unenforceable bidding, even though the contract had not been the subject of exhaustive deliberation by the Court of Auditors, sustaining, equally, violation of public order by the incentive that the opposed decision would be providing “to the direct hiring, with possible improprieties”, in disrespect to the provisions of items II and VIII , of article 71, CF / 88, requesting, in summary, the suspension of the referred judicial decision with the restoration of the effects of the ECA judgment.
The Chief Justice of STF Dias Toffoli stressed in the decision that in a SS, the judge is limited “to the analysis of the harmful potential of the act combated in the face of public interests expressly highlighted in law”, failing to appreciate the matters “that go beyond the field of action admissible to the extent claimed ”.
Thus, it was understood that the legality examination carried out by the Court of Justice does not constitute an invasion of the TCE’s competence, since “the Judiciary, in its reasons for deciding, is not limited by the level of appreciation performed by the coercive body (if cautious or exhaustive) ), the reasoning adopted by the magistrate being freely convinced ”, adding that“ the acts of the Court of Auditors are subject to the appreciation and control of the Judiciary, in direct application of the principle of non-exhaustiveness of the jurisdiction ”, explaining that in specific case the decision of the Court of Justice had its effects limited to the object of the writ of mandamus, which is the injunction of the ECA, without any binding effect in relation to the subsequent acts of the Court of Auditors in that specific factual situation, reasons for which if the preliminary order.
By: Wilson Sales Belchior
Source: ClikJus
PEC nº 39/2021 – Changes in special features
The Chamber of Deputies approved on 07/13/2022 the final text of the Proposed Amendment to the Constitution nº 39/2021 (“PEC of Relevance”). Presented on 11/08/2021 by...
The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice unanimously dismissed Special Appeal 1,880,334 / SP, maintaining the judgment that denied the claim for compensation for...
