Post sponsored by

MIL OSI-C. Region: Latin/Latin America

Source: the Republic-of-Brazil-2

NEPAL upholds the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL to establish the availability of the goods

Posted : 10/10/2019 – up-to-Date at : 10:29:31 pm

Photo by: Renato was born in são paulo/Ascom NEPAL

The office of the solicitor General (AGU), argues for this Thursday (10/10), the Supreme Court on the legality of the rulings of the european Court of Auditors (TCU), who have ordered the freezing of assets, to ensure that the repair is in the future for losses incurred by the public purse. In a memorial to be distributed to the ministers of the SUPREME federal court, the OFCE asks for the rejection of the five injunctions against the rulings of the FEDERAL moved in for the construction companies OAS, Odebrecht, and others. An authorization from the minister of the Justice, the rapporteur of the case, suspended the decision of the court of auditors.The authors of the lawsuits allege that the FEDERAL does not have jurisdiction to issue orders for the freezing of assets of people who do not exercise a public function. The measures that have been taken in rio in 2016 and 2017, after Taking account of the Special that you have found to be sobrepreço in the contracts entered into by the companies to the state, in addition to the irregularities in construction work of the Petrochemical Complex of Rio de Janeiro.Already, the OFCE has argued that the competence of fiscalizatória of the court, is not determined by the nature of the entities involved in the transaction but by the origin of the funds involved. With reference to the Federal Constitution, a memorial reminds us that it is: “any person, firm or corporation, either public or private,” to be held accountable, since it collect, manages, or administers public assets and valuables, or for whom the Union is the answer. In the document, and the QUALITIES it emphasizes that the federal Court of Accounts has the legal authority to issue orders for the freezing of assets of persons responsible for the damage to the public treasury, for a period of up to one year. In addition, the Court has the power to examine the accounts of all that is lost, or to have committed irregularities that have resulted in damages to the state treasury. “Including this under the supervision of the individuals,” he stressed on the QUALITIES.According to the Office of the General Organic Law on the TCU (Law 8443/1992) provides that, subject to the jurisdiction of the FEDERAL, the participate in from the harm caused by the agent of the public, ensuring that the joint and several liability of a third party, which may contribute to the practice of the same act, as the contracting parties, or a party.For NEPAL, the objective of the measure was to guard against a possible recovery of the amounts malversados. “If the constitutionally mandated body charged with the control of the public finances did not have the tools to safeguard their powers (such as they are, the precautionary measures in the proceedings to be taken in account), your own existence, and the legitimacy (legitimacy of purposive, say) would be questionable,” he says of the memorial service. “In this context, consideration that the Federal Constitution grants to the Court of Auditors on the assignment, an implied justification for precautionary measures, it would mean the removal of an instrument that has been essential to the payment of compensation for damage caused by acts detrimental to the state treasury,” he says, adding that the tool has been effective in the recovery of resources stolen.In addition, in accordance with the QUALITIES, the subject has already been discussed in the Second Class, that of the SUPREME court, and the decisions monocráticas, which found that FEDERAL has the constitutional authority and have been for the legislation to impose a freezing of assets in the face of serious illness, and the need for protection of the public interest. Contesting the claim of the party to which a measure will constitute breach of bank secrecy, the OFCE has argued that the precautionary measure may be taken only in respect of holdings of non-financial assets. The non-availability of the goods, he does not have as its aim the financial activity is limited to the Central Bank of the states of the amounts available in the accounts.The author of the action also objected to the alleged lack of motive for the measure. But the QUALITIES demonstrated on the basis of the precautionary measures based on the so-called periculum in mora (danger in delay), in the face of a high-speed, potentially caused by with the FEDERAL individual, in cases that you have published, the ratio of each of the impetrantes with the alleged unlawful act.“The decree of the provisional measure of freezing of assets of those responsible, it was a measure which was to ensure that the outcome of the merit review procedure, and ensuring the reimbursement of the potential damage to the state treasury,” concluded the attorney General, requesting that the warrants not be issued.References: bid Security: 34.410, 34.392, 34.357, 35.506, and 34.421.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should of the grammar and/or sentence structure not to be perfect.

MIL Translation OSI