Post by nurnobisorker65 on Feb 11, 2024 3:53:07 GMT -5
Minister Benjamin Zymler, Judgment 2,924/2018-Plenary, rapporteur: minister José Mucio Monteiro, Judgment 11,762/2018-2nd Chamber, rapporteur: minister Marcosand Judgments 957/ 2019, 1,264/2019 and 1,689/2019, all from the Plenary, with minister Augusto Nardes as rapporteur, among others. [3] BINENBOJM, Gustavo; CYRINO, André. Article 28 of the LINDB— The general administrative error clause. Administrative Law Magazine, Special Edition: Public Law in the Law of Introduction to the Standards of Brazilian Law (LINDB) (Law nº 13,655/2018), p. 203-224, nov. 2018. [4] This position was recently reaffirmed with the delivery of Judgment 1958/2022-TCU-Plenário, Rapporteur: Benjamin.
Zymler. [5] FERRAZ, Luciano. Changes in Lindb and its impact on the responsibility of public agents. ConJur . São Paulo, 29 Nov. 2018. Available at: www.conjur.com.br/2018-nov-29/interesse-publico-lindb-questao-erro-grosseiro-decisao-tcu . Accessed on 5/5/2022. [6] Understanding that the responsibility of public managers before the TCU follows the general rule of responsibility provided for in civil law: Ruling 18957/2021-TCU-Second Chamber, Belgium Email List rapporteur Aroldo Cedraz, Ruling 18333/2021-TCU-First Chamber, rapporteur André de Carvalho and Ruling 4485/2020-TCU-First Chamber, rapporteur Benjamin Zymler, among others. [7] It should be clarified that this text is focused on the discussion of the subject at the constitutional level. However, the existence of other arguments in defense of the presumption of.
compatibility of article 28 of the Lindb with the Constitution is not unknown. For example, it is worth noting that there are categories of state agents in which the norm stipulated an even more restrictive liability regime than that of article 28 of the Lindb, providing that such agents will only respond, civilly and regressively, when they act with intent or fraud. in the exercise of their functions, without even mentioning the culpable modality. This is what is established, for example, by Law 13,105/2015 (Civil Procedure Code), which provides for the personal responsibility of magistrates (article 143), members of the Public Ministry (article 181), Public Advocacy (article 184) and Public Defender's Office.
Zymler. [5] FERRAZ, Luciano. Changes in Lindb and its impact on the responsibility of public agents. ConJur . São Paulo, 29 Nov. 2018. Available at: www.conjur.com.br/2018-nov-29/interesse-publico-lindb-questao-erro-grosseiro-decisao-tcu . Accessed on 5/5/2022. [6] Understanding that the responsibility of public managers before the TCU follows the general rule of responsibility provided for in civil law: Ruling 18957/2021-TCU-Second Chamber, Belgium Email List rapporteur Aroldo Cedraz, Ruling 18333/2021-TCU-First Chamber, rapporteur André de Carvalho and Ruling 4485/2020-TCU-First Chamber, rapporteur Benjamin Zymler, among others. [7] It should be clarified that this text is focused on the discussion of the subject at the constitutional level. However, the existence of other arguments in defense of the presumption of.
compatibility of article 28 of the Lindb with the Constitution is not unknown. For example, it is worth noting that there are categories of state agents in which the norm stipulated an even more restrictive liability regime than that of article 28 of the Lindb, providing that such agents will only respond, civilly and regressively, when they act with intent or fraud. in the exercise of their functions, without even mentioning the culpable modality. This is what is established, for example, by Law 13,105/2015 (Civil Procedure Code), which provides for the personal responsibility of magistrates (article 143), members of the Public Ministry (article 181), Public Advocacy (article 184) and Public Defender's Office.