Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 15:22:23 GMT 10
The 2nd Section of the Superior Court of Justice will discuss, under the rite of repetitive appeals, the possibility of assessing the objection offered before the execution of the search and seizure injunction granted based on Decree-Law 911/1969.
reproduction
Minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino
Reproduction
In a monocratic decision, minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, rapporteur, affected, ad referendum of the collegiate, Special Appeal (REsp) 1,892,589 to be judged as representative of the controversy, together with REsp 1,799,367, already affected by the 2nd Section.
There was no suspension of the processes dealing with the issue, as the rapporteur understood that any order in this regard "could make the implementation of injunctive measures unfeasible, causing damages that would be difficult to repair to fiduciary creditors".
Registered as Topic 1,040 in the STJ Portugal Mobile Number List database, the controversy arose after the filing of an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais in an Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Demands (IRDR), in which the thesis was established that, in the action of search and seizure, "the analysis of the defense by the defendant must only occur after the execution of the preliminary measure, in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 3 of Decree-Law 911/1969".
For the state court, explained Minister Sanseverino, the legal rule "would exclude the possibility of the court of origin knowing any defense presented in the defendant's response, until the search and seizure injunction has been executed."
The party that filed REsp 1,799,367 argued that the joint interpretation of DL 911/1969 with the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure would lead to an understanding contrary to that established by the TJ-MG.
According to Sanseverino, who chairs the STJ's Precedents and Collective Actions Management Committee, there was the formation of a precedent qualified by the court of origin, in the IRDR judgment, dealing with the interpretation of federal law, with the potential to bind individual judgments within the scope of its jurisdiction.
This fact, for the minister, is enough to justify the allocation of the topic to the rite of repetitive appeals, given the need to preserve the constitutional mission of the STJ as the highest instance for the interpretation of federal laws. The rapporteur also recalled that there are judgments in the STJ that are contrary to the understanding reached by the TJ-MG.
reproduction
Minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino
Reproduction
In a monocratic decision, minister Paulo de Tarso Sanseverino, rapporteur, affected, ad referendum of the collegiate, Special Appeal (REsp) 1,892,589 to be judged as representative of the controversy, together with REsp 1,799,367, already affected by the 2nd Section.
There was no suspension of the processes dealing with the issue, as the rapporteur understood that any order in this regard "could make the implementation of injunctive measures unfeasible, causing damages that would be difficult to repair to fiduciary creditors".
Registered as Topic 1,040 in the STJ Portugal Mobile Number List database, the controversy arose after the filing of an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais in an Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Demands (IRDR), in which the thesis was established that, in the action of search and seizure, "the analysis of the defense by the defendant must only occur after the execution of the preliminary measure, in accordance with paragraph 3 of article 3 of Decree-Law 911/1969".
For the state court, explained Minister Sanseverino, the legal rule "would exclude the possibility of the court of origin knowing any defense presented in the defendant's response, until the search and seizure injunction has been executed."
The party that filed REsp 1,799,367 argued that the joint interpretation of DL 911/1969 with the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure would lead to an understanding contrary to that established by the TJ-MG.
According to Sanseverino, who chairs the STJ's Precedents and Collective Actions Management Committee, there was the formation of a precedent qualified by the court of origin, in the IRDR judgment, dealing with the interpretation of federal law, with the potential to bind individual judgments within the scope of its jurisdiction.
This fact, for the minister, is enough to justify the allocation of the topic to the rite of repetitive appeals, given the need to preserve the constitutional mission of the STJ as the highest instance for the interpretation of federal laws. The rapporteur also recalled that there are judgments in the STJ that are contrary to the understanding reached by the TJ-MG.