Counsel
Menu Cover Sections Columnists Yearbooks Advertise Book Store Bestsellers Bookstore Releases Legal Bulletin (Clipping) Courses Search Books My Account Newsletter Conjure: register and receive free. Login Columns
Last week, gained wide dissemination proposed amendment to the Constitution by Mrs Luiza Erundina (PEC 275/2013), which aims to change the composition and competence of the Supreme Court. The proposal also changes the name of the court, watch series who would call themselves Constitutional Court. [1] Apparently, the PEC is inspired by the suggestion made in 2013 by Professor Fabio Comparato Kondziu. [2]
The idea is not entirely new. There are other similar proposals pending in Congress related, for example, the method of choice of the ministers who make up the Supreme Court. [3]
The proposal contained watch series in PEC 275/2013 coincide at some points, watch series with what I have been advocating for years. [4] In some texts of the New Process column here at Conjure, have dealt with the subject. In 2012, analyzing PEC 209/2012, the National Commission on Access to Justice OAB showed similar suggestion, which, however, was rejected by the Federal Council of the entity. [5]
In addition to changing the criteria for selection of members of the Supreme Court, with the presentation of pre-presidential lists, change the jurisdiction of the superior watch series courts, optimizing its performance. Thus, the fit becomes extraordinary appeal only against decisions of higher courts, to be tried by the Supreme watch series Court (Constitutional Court or the name given to that court by PEC); against decisions of local courts (Federal and Regional watch series States), it is only a special appeal to the Superior Court. The proposal also expands watch series the number of ministers from the Superior Court of Justice. [6] The PEC hits, in my view, to reduce the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [7]
Although intends to transform the Supreme Court in a constitutional court, the PEC remains tied to outdated structure, watch series pursuant to the Federal Constitution of 1988, which divided watch series the jurisdiction of the superior courts, as regards extraordinary and special resources, taking into account the nature of the issues (constitutional or federal infra).
This separation does not make sense. The Supreme Court decides federal questions in the light of the Constitution - and could not be otherwise. Seems more appropriate, therefore, that particularly appeal can be argued both violate the constitutional and federal infra-norm. [8] This solution also has the advantage of filling the vacuum that is the Brazilian legal system, since today nonexistent court of overlap that eliminates disputes about the interpretation of constitutional rule, when understand that the issue has no impact general. [9]
I believe watch series that the PEC 275/2013 should also be enhanced at another point. I refer to the prediction of the appropriateness of particular appeal only when "the contested watch series decision gives the federal law an interpretation different from that which has assigned another court", which corresponds to the situation envisaged in paragraph c of article 105, III of the Constitution, in its current wording.
At this point, the suggestion is better than expected in the "PEC STJ" which creates the requirement of relevance to the question of federal special appeal, [10] because it elevates one of the key roles of the Superior Court of Justice, which is to promote uniform interpretation of federal law. Peca's proposal, however, does not admit the special appeal when it is alleged violation of federal law, which there was no jurisprudential still bargaining. It may therefore happen that issues new federal law, or emerge from only one local courts can not be subject to a decision by the Superior Court. I think the hypothesis appropriateness currently envisaged in paragraph a of Article 105, III of the Constitution can not be completely removed - even in the case of this point,
Menu Cover Sections Columnists Yearbooks Advertise Book Store Bestsellers Bookstore Releases Legal Bulletin (Clipping) Courses Search Books My Account Newsletter Conjure: register and receive free. Login Columns
Last week, gained wide dissemination proposed amendment to the Constitution by Mrs Luiza Erundina (PEC 275/2013), which aims to change the composition and competence of the Supreme Court. The proposal also changes the name of the court, watch series who would call themselves Constitutional Court. [1] Apparently, the PEC is inspired by the suggestion made in 2013 by Professor Fabio Comparato Kondziu. [2]
The idea is not entirely new. There are other similar proposals pending in Congress related, for example, the method of choice of the ministers who make up the Supreme Court. [3]
The proposal contained watch series in PEC 275/2013 coincide at some points, watch series with what I have been advocating for years. [4] In some texts of the New Process column here at Conjure, have dealt with the subject. In 2012, analyzing PEC 209/2012, the National Commission on Access to Justice OAB showed similar suggestion, which, however, was rejected by the Federal Council of the entity. [5]
In addition to changing the criteria for selection of members of the Supreme Court, with the presentation of pre-presidential lists, change the jurisdiction of the superior watch series courts, optimizing its performance. Thus, the fit becomes extraordinary appeal only against decisions of higher courts, to be tried by the Supreme watch series Court (Constitutional Court or the name given to that court by PEC); against decisions of local courts (Federal and Regional watch series States), it is only a special appeal to the Superior Court. The proposal also expands watch series the number of ministers from the Superior Court of Justice. [6] The PEC hits, in my view, to reduce the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [7]
Although intends to transform the Supreme Court in a constitutional court, the PEC remains tied to outdated structure, watch series pursuant to the Federal Constitution of 1988, which divided watch series the jurisdiction of the superior courts, as regards extraordinary and special resources, taking into account the nature of the issues (constitutional or federal infra).
This separation does not make sense. The Supreme Court decides federal questions in the light of the Constitution - and could not be otherwise. Seems more appropriate, therefore, that particularly appeal can be argued both violate the constitutional and federal infra-norm. [8] This solution also has the advantage of filling the vacuum that is the Brazilian legal system, since today nonexistent court of overlap that eliminates disputes about the interpretation of constitutional rule, when understand that the issue has no impact general. [9]
I believe watch series that the PEC 275/2013 should also be enhanced at another point. I refer to the prediction of the appropriateness of particular appeal only when "the contested watch series decision gives the federal law an interpretation different from that which has assigned another court", which corresponds to the situation envisaged in paragraph c of article 105, III of the Constitution, in its current wording.
At this point, the suggestion is better than expected in the "PEC STJ" which creates the requirement of relevance to the question of federal special appeal, [10] because it elevates one of the key roles of the Superior Court of Justice, which is to promote uniform interpretation of federal law. Peca's proposal, however, does not admit the special appeal when it is alleged violation of federal law, which there was no jurisprudential still bargaining. It may therefore happen that issues new federal law, or emerge from only one local courts can not be subject to a decision by the Superior Court. I think the hypothesis appropriateness currently envisaged in paragraph a of Article 105, III of the Constitution can not be completely removed - even in the case of this point,
No comments:
Post a Comment