Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 4:08:56 GMT -5
The Superior Court of Justice will decide under the rite of repetitive appeals a very tormenting issue related to administrative improbity actions: the asset constriction of the defendants in an injunction. The discussion will take place in Topic which analyzes REsps in addition to two more processes that are being processed under secrecy.
More specifically the STJ will assess whether or not there is a need for a pro rata division between the agents responsible for the damage for the constriction order. The thesis is as follows: “the responsibility of dishonorable agents is joint and several and allows the constriction of assets in its entirety without the need for pro rata division at least until the final instruction of the dishonesty action when the delimitation of each agent's share will occur for compensation.”
The subject is tormenting because it concerns Phone Number Data the restrictive measure that is frankly invasive and in most cases taken based solely on the narrative provided by the legitimate party that filed a public civil action for an act of administrative improbity.
Furthermore as a rule administrative improbity actions involve a significant number of defendants who jointly and severally are subject to the act of asset constriction initially authorized with the aim of preventing the agent indicated as improbable from eventually disposing of their assets. making it difficult or impossible to reimburse amounts to the public treasury.
The validity of the precautionary measures that seek to ensure that there is sufficient assets to repair the damage caused to the public treasury discussed within the scope of the improbity action is not questioned here. What is being discussed is the lack of proportion and reasonableness which often ends up creating situations of injustice in the broadest sense of the word.
This is because it is not at all uncommon for people who have absolutely nothing to do with the illegal act to be placed as defendants in misconduct actions. And as such they are subject and addressed equally among themselves to the effects of unavailability orders. One of the main challenges and controversies surrounding unavailability decisions therefore includes the necessary proportionality of the measure as at least in theory the constriction measure should always be proportional to the severity of each defendant's conduct and the amount of the damage to be repaired.
More specifically the STJ will assess whether or not there is a need for a pro rata division between the agents responsible for the damage for the constriction order. The thesis is as follows: “the responsibility of dishonorable agents is joint and several and allows the constriction of assets in its entirety without the need for pro rata division at least until the final instruction of the dishonesty action when the delimitation of each agent's share will occur for compensation.”
The subject is tormenting because it concerns Phone Number Data the restrictive measure that is frankly invasive and in most cases taken based solely on the narrative provided by the legitimate party that filed a public civil action for an act of administrative improbity.
Furthermore as a rule administrative improbity actions involve a significant number of defendants who jointly and severally are subject to the act of asset constriction initially authorized with the aim of preventing the agent indicated as improbable from eventually disposing of their assets. making it difficult or impossible to reimburse amounts to the public treasury.
The validity of the precautionary measures that seek to ensure that there is sufficient assets to repair the damage caused to the public treasury discussed within the scope of the improbity action is not questioned here. What is being discussed is the lack of proportion and reasonableness which often ends up creating situations of injustice in the broadest sense of the word.
This is because it is not at all uncommon for people who have absolutely nothing to do with the illegal act to be placed as defendants in misconduct actions. And as such they are subject and addressed equally among themselves to the effects of unavailability orders. One of the main challenges and controversies surrounding unavailability decisions therefore includes the necessary proportionality of the measure as at least in theory the constriction measure should always be proportional to the severity of each defendant's conduct and the amount of the damage to be repaired.