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
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |