Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 1:03:13 GMT -5
Through motions for clarification the decision was changed and payment of the difference was submitted to the precatorial regime . The TJ-MG upheld the sentence. The legal basis for the extraordinary appeal was that the precatório regime would not apply to the compensation amount in the case of expropriation because this must be preceded by prior fair and monetary compensation .
In the event of the need to supplement the compensation at the end of the expropriation process payment must be made through direct judicial deposit if the Public Authority is not up to date with the court orders” .
With this decision the STF determined that CG Leads the difference in compensation be paid through direct deposit by the municipality of Juiz de Fora in view of the constitutional determination that compensation in cases of expropriation must be fair and prior – that is without court orders.
The STF was undeniably correct in its decision except for one specific point: it mentioned that direct payment that is without a court order could only occur “if the Public Authority is not up to date with the court orders” .
Why was this exception created? It doesn't have the slightest coherence. If payment through precatório is not prior why use it if the precatorial payment regime is up to date? Nothing justifies the exception inserted in the Thesis. It is a contradiction in its own terms.
The correct thing would be for the STF to have declared simply and simply that: “In the event of the need to supplement the compensation at the end of the expropriation process payment must be made through direct judicial deposit without the need for a court order ”. It's as simple as that without exceptions and in compliance with what the Constitution establishes: expropriation can only be done upon payment of prior compensation in cash which reaches the initial amount and its possible supplement.
With the exception contained in the text we will have more judicialization in sight. A feather. The STF missed the chance to resolve this problem once and for all.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD created the Capital Movement Liberalization Code. The instrument defines direct investment as participation intended to establish lasting economic relations that allow it to exert influence on the management of the national company.
In the case of indirect investment resources from abroad are applied but this does not result in control of the national company. This is the case of what the Intra-Mercosur Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Protocol considers as public portfolio or portfolio debt instruments pecuniary claims and economic obligations before the establishment of capital Albuquerque ; Barza ; Ferraz.
In the event of the need to supplement the compensation at the end of the expropriation process payment must be made through direct judicial deposit if the Public Authority is not up to date with the court orders” .
With this decision the STF determined that CG Leads the difference in compensation be paid through direct deposit by the municipality of Juiz de Fora in view of the constitutional determination that compensation in cases of expropriation must be fair and prior – that is without court orders.
The STF was undeniably correct in its decision except for one specific point: it mentioned that direct payment that is without a court order could only occur “if the Public Authority is not up to date with the court orders” .
Why was this exception created? It doesn't have the slightest coherence. If payment through precatório is not prior why use it if the precatorial payment regime is up to date? Nothing justifies the exception inserted in the Thesis. It is a contradiction in its own terms.
The correct thing would be for the STF to have declared simply and simply that: “In the event of the need to supplement the compensation at the end of the expropriation process payment must be made through direct judicial deposit without the need for a court order ”. It's as simple as that without exceptions and in compliance with what the Constitution establishes: expropriation can only be done upon payment of prior compensation in cash which reaches the initial amount and its possible supplement.
With the exception contained in the text we will have more judicialization in sight. A feather. The STF missed the chance to resolve this problem once and for all.
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD created the Capital Movement Liberalization Code. The instrument defines direct investment as participation intended to establish lasting economic relations that allow it to exert influence on the management of the national company.
In the case of indirect investment resources from abroad are applied but this does not result in control of the national company. This is the case of what the Intra-Mercosur Investment Cooperation and Facilitation Protocol considers as public portfolio or portfolio debt instruments pecuniary claims and economic obligations before the establishment of capital Albuquerque ; Barza ; Ferraz.