The divergence was followed by ministers Ricardo Lewandowski
Feb 19, 2024 5:01:57 GMT 2
Post by anik4200 on Feb 19, 2024 5:01:57 GMT 2
Cármen Lúcia and Rosa Weber. Favoring companies The authors of the two direct unconstitutionality actions judged by the Supreme Court, the Attorney General's Office and the National Association of Road Passenger Transport Companies (Anatrip), argued that the provision of public services must be carried out directly by the public authorities or through concession or permission, never by authorization, and always through bidding. They also argued that the authorization model may favor companies that already operate such services and does not guarantee consumer protection.A request for a review from Minister Luiz Fux interrupted this Wednesday (29/3) the trial in which the Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court analyzes the creation of the State Department of Criminal Executions and the State Department of Police Inquiries in the Judiciary of São Paulo.
Nelson Jr./SCO/STF Luiz Fux's request for review suspended judgment on centralization of execution Nelson Jr./SCO/STF The case rapporteur, Minister Dias Toffoli, voted for the general validity of the model. However, he took a stand for the unconstitutionality of paragraph 3 of article 1 of Complem Special Phone Number Data entary Law 1,208/2013 of the state of São Paulo. The decision, in its interpretation, should come into force in 24 months, counting from the date of publication of the minutes of the STF judgment. The provision establishes that the Superior Council of the Judiciary will designate the judges who will work in the State Department of Criminal Executions and the State Department of Police Inquiries, as well as the permanent inspector of prisons in each regional unit and the permanent inspector of the Civil Police upon registration of the judges.
Interested parties, taking into account their professional history. The rapporteur's vote was followed by ministers André Mendonça and Nunes Marques. Minister Alexandre de Moraes opened the divergence and voted to declare the full constitutionality of São Paulo Complementary Law 1,208/2013. STF precedent In his vote, Dias Toffoli highlighted that the Supreme Court has already decided that the creation of specialized courts is constitutional (ADI 4,414). The minister recalled that the National Council of Justice even defends judgments focused on specific subjects. However, Toffoli declared that the STF understands that state rules that attribute to the highest bodies of the Judiciary the appointment of judges to specialized courts are unconstitutional, due to violation of the principle of irremovability.
Nelson Jr./SCO/STF Luiz Fux's request for review suspended judgment on centralization of execution Nelson Jr./SCO/STF The case rapporteur, Minister Dias Toffoli, voted for the general validity of the model. However, he took a stand for the unconstitutionality of paragraph 3 of article 1 of Complem Special Phone Number Data entary Law 1,208/2013 of the state of São Paulo. The decision, in its interpretation, should come into force in 24 months, counting from the date of publication of the minutes of the STF judgment. The provision establishes that the Superior Council of the Judiciary will designate the judges who will work in the State Department of Criminal Executions and the State Department of Police Inquiries, as well as the permanent inspector of prisons in each regional unit and the permanent inspector of the Civil Police upon registration of the judges.
Interested parties, taking into account their professional history. The rapporteur's vote was followed by ministers André Mendonça and Nunes Marques. Minister Alexandre de Moraes opened the divergence and voted to declare the full constitutionality of São Paulo Complementary Law 1,208/2013. STF precedent In his vote, Dias Toffoli highlighted that the Supreme Court has already decided that the creation of specialized courts is constitutional (ADI 4,414). The minister recalled that the National Council of Justice even defends judgments focused on specific subjects. However, Toffoli declared that the STF understands that state rules that attribute to the highest bodies of the Judiciary the appointment of judges to specialized courts are unconstitutional, due to violation of the principle of irremovability.