Post sponsored by

MIL OSI-C. Region: Latin/Latin America

Source: the Republic-of-Brazil-2

NEPAL acts to maintain the ruling that barred the payment of R$ 77 bi, the owner of the land

Posted : 30/04/2020 – up-to-Date at : 12:48:04 pm

The office of the solicitor General (AGU), argues in court for the maintenance of a judgement of the first instance that barred the payment on the part of the Union of$ 77,3 billion, the alleged owner of the land located in the northwest region of the State.The operation of the AGU is by way of the office of the Prosecutor of the Union in the state of Paraná (PU/PR) that you filed with the contrarrazões to the appeal of the author with the 6th u.s. district court of the city. In the opinion of the first degree are recognized, the limitation of the application made by the alleged owner.In the lawsuit, the plaintiff alleges that the state of the Paraná, had usurped a large area of land in your property is the so-called ‘Soil-Tight’. It states that the state has promoted since the second half of the last century, a good deal of movement in the colonization of the lands that would be owned by you, where you are currently located in several cities. For the so-called owner, in the areas that would be located in an area of the international border, and because of this, the eu would be expected to be self-conscious if they were apossadas by the State of Paraná. The so-called default, it asks for the accountability of the Union for the losses they have suffered.The action is filed that involves a process that dates back to the early years of the Republic. With the entry into force of the process took place on the 9th of June, 1999. The lawsuit alleged the owner seeking damages from the Union was filed on the 7th day of June, 2019 at the latest. ArgumentosA Justice dismissed the application and held that the claim of the complainant was directed. The alleged owner appealed, arguing that the statute of limitations for a charge, the loss would be 20 years of age. But in NEPAL it argues that the Union could not be held responsible or liable for the acts committed by the State, in the state of Paraná. The fact that the basis of the liability allocated to the Union will be authorized the omission of the act, in the case it is, therefore, to a mere action in tort, which shall be five years.It states that the author has never proved to be a request for anything in regard to the Union, and it emphasizes that the action in question will have a number of reasons, and the arguments that can be applied, such as the lack of proof of ownership, and the fact that the earlier decision of the SUPREME court does not recognize the ownership of the land on the part of the authors who have already been using this type of application.“To give you an idea of the importance of such activities, in the amount required by the plaintiff, a single person represents more than one-third of the loans outstanding approved in the european Union to do the fighting for the new coronavirus. The role of the OFCE is leading to that it is fabulous to be kept in the budget in order to ensure the implementation of public policies for the millions of people,” says a Lawyer for the Union, Mr. Fields, who serves on the event.

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

MIL Translation OSI