The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Pereira, Ana Paula Sampaio Silva
Data de Publicação: 2014
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online)
Texto Completo: https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/2353
Resumo: This article aims to examine the mandamus 25.116 and 24.781, focusing on the principle of legal certainty. In these, the Brazilian Supreme Court –which until now had considered expendable the participation of beneficiaries in cases about of initial grant of retirement, military retirement and pension acts – invoked the principle of legal certainty to invalidate decisions of the Brazilian Court of Accounts (TCU) with the understanding that the inertia of the TCU for more than 5 years to appreciate these concessions grants the beneficiaries the right to have the opportunity to be heard and to participate in the process of their benefits judgment. To analyze these precedents, this work initially sets the meaning in which legal certainty will be used and explains its difference, as a legal principle, from the other kinds or types of law standards. After that it clarifies the distinction and relationship between legal certainty (objective meaning) and the principle of protection of confidence (subjective dimension of legal certainty) and investigates their contents. Then it contextualizes the questions involved in that mandamus and identifies the legal arguments and normative foundations used. Finally the article confronts them with the doctrinal opinions and other information collected in this study to check their compatibility. The study concludes that although the arrangement they signed represent an evolution in comparison with the previous case law, it don’t implement the principle of legal certainty how it wants to do.
id UNICEUB-3_06797abf7060b4d0040dd0bbbcb73d05
oai_identifier_str oai:oai.uniceub.emnuvens.com.br:article/2353
network_acronym_str UNICEUB-3
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116A segurança jurídica administrativa na jurisprudência do supremo tribunal federal: uma análise acerca dos fundamentos normativos e dos argumentos jurídicos nos julgamentos dos mandados de segurança 24.781 e 25.116This article aims to examine the mandamus 25.116 and 24.781, focusing on the principle of legal certainty. In these, the Brazilian Supreme Court –which until now had considered expendable the participation of beneficiaries in cases about of initial grant of retirement, military retirement and pension acts – invoked the principle of legal certainty to invalidate decisions of the Brazilian Court of Accounts (TCU) with the understanding that the inertia of the TCU for more than 5 years to appreciate these concessions grants the beneficiaries the right to have the opportunity to be heard and to participate in the process of their benefits judgment. To analyze these precedents, this work initially sets the meaning in which legal certainty will be used and explains its difference, as a legal principle, from the other kinds or types of law standards. After that it clarifies the distinction and relationship between legal certainty (objective meaning) and the principle of protection of confidence (subjective dimension of legal certainty) and investigates their contents. Then it contextualizes the questions involved in that mandamus and identifies the legal arguments and normative foundations used. Finally the article confronts them with the doctrinal opinions and other information collected in this study to check their compatibility. The study concludes that although the arrangement they signed represent an evolution in comparison with the previous case law, it don’t implement the principle of legal certainty how it wants to do.O presente artigo tem por objetivo examinar os Mandados de Segurança 24.781 e 25.116, tendo como foco a segurança jurídica. Neles, o Supremo Tribunal Federal – que até então considerava dispensável a participação dos beneficiários nos processos de controle externo que tratam de atos de concessão inicial de aposentadoria, reforma e pensão – invocou o princípio da segurança jurídica para invalidar decisões do Tribunal de Contas da |União sob o entendimento de que a inércia da Corte de Contas por mais de 5 anos ao apreciar essas concessões faz surgir para o interessado o direito ao exercício do contraditório e da ampla defesa. Para analisar esses precedentes este trabalho, inicialmente define o sentido no qual a segurança jurídica será abordada e a diferencia, como princípio jurídico, das demais espécies normativas. Em seguida, esclarece a distinção e a relação entre a segurança jurídica em sentido objetivo e o princípio da proteção da confiança (dimensão subjetiva da segurança jurídica) para, depois, investigar os respectivos conteúdos. Feito isso, contextualiza a matéria envolvida nos julgados e identifica os argumentos jurídicos e fundamentos normativos neles utilizados para, finalmente, confrontá-los com as opiniões doutrinárias e demais informações colhidas ao longo do estudo, de forma a verificar a compatibilidade entre ambos. Conclui que o entendimento neles firmado, embora represente uma evolução em relação à jurisprudência anterior, não efetiva o princípio da segurança jurídica, tal qual se propõe a fazer.UniCEUBPereira, Ana Paula Sampaio Silva2014-01-17info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/235310.5102/rbpp.v3i2.2353Brazilian Journal of Public Policy; v. 3, n. 2 (2013): Federalismo; 195-227Revista Brasileña de Políticas Públicas; v. 3, n. 2 (2013): Federalismo; 195-227Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas; v. 3, n. 2 (2013): Federalismo; 195-2272236-16772179-8338reponame:Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online)instname:Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB)instacron:UNICEUBporhttps://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/2353/pdf_1info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2018-12-20T01:51:41Zoai:oai.uniceub.emnuvens.com.br:article/2353Revistahttp://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/index.php/RBPPPRIhttps://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/oaiatendimento.seer@uniceub.br||rbppuniceub@gmail.com|| prisqua@gmail.com|| marcelodvarella@gmail.com2236-16772179-8338opendoar:2018-12-20T01:51:41Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) - Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116
A segurança jurídica administrativa na jurisprudência do supremo tribunal federal: uma análise acerca dos fundamentos normativos e dos argumentos jurídicos nos julgamentos dos mandados de segurança 24.781 e 25.116
title The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116
spellingShingle The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116
Pereira, Ana Paula Sampaio Silva
title_short The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116
title_full The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116
title_fullStr The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116
title_full_unstemmed The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116
title_sort The Administrative Legal Security in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court: An Analysis of the Normative Grounds and Legal Arguments in the Judgement of Injunctions 24,781 and 25,116
author Pereira, Ana Paula Sampaio Silva
author_facet Pereira, Ana Paula Sampaio Silva
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv

dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Pereira, Ana Paula Sampaio Silva
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv



description This article aims to examine the mandamus 25.116 and 24.781, focusing on the principle of legal certainty. In these, the Brazilian Supreme Court –which until now had considered expendable the participation of beneficiaries in cases about of initial grant of retirement, military retirement and pension acts – invoked the principle of legal certainty to invalidate decisions of the Brazilian Court of Accounts (TCU) with the understanding that the inertia of the TCU for more than 5 years to appreciate these concessions grants the beneficiaries the right to have the opportunity to be heard and to participate in the process of their benefits judgment. To analyze these precedents, this work initially sets the meaning in which legal certainty will be used and explains its difference, as a legal principle, from the other kinds or types of law standards. After that it clarifies the distinction and relationship between legal certainty (objective meaning) and the principle of protection of confidence (subjective dimension of legal certainty) and investigates their contents. Then it contextualizes the questions involved in that mandamus and identifies the legal arguments and normative foundations used. Finally the article confronts them with the doctrinal opinions and other information collected in this study to check their compatibility. The study concludes that although the arrangement they signed represent an evolution in comparison with the previous case law, it don’t implement the principle of legal certainty how it wants to do.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-01-17
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/2353
10.5102/rbpp.v3i2.2353
url https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/2353
identifier_str_mv 10.5102/rbpp.v3i2.2353
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.publicacoesacademicas.uniceub.br/RBPP/article/view/2353/pdf_1
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv UniCEUB
publisher.none.fl_str_mv UniCEUB
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Public Policy; v. 3, n. 2 (2013): Federalismo; 195-227
Revista Brasileña de Políticas Públicas; v. 3, n. 2 (2013): Federalismo; 195-227
Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas; v. 3, n. 2 (2013): Federalismo; 195-227
2236-1677
2179-8338
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online)
instname:Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB)
instacron:UNICEUB
instname_str Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB)
instacron_str UNICEUB
institution UNICEUB
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Políticas Públicas (Online) - Centro de Ensino de Brasília (UNICEUB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv atendimento.seer@uniceub.br||rbppuniceub@gmail.com|| prisqua@gmail.com|| marcelodvarella@gmail.com
_version_ 1798328490530963456