OBJECT: TORT OF FILING REGIMENTAL IN ARTICLE 317 OF SHAPE Supreme Court, re-ratification WITH THE FILING PART PRIOR ALLEGING TO EITHER, NOT HAVING MADE NO TYPE OF PROCEDURE MALICE FOCUSING ONLY TO REMEDY THE OBJECT TO MM INSTALLATION. RECONCILIATION OF JUDGEMENT REQUIRED AND NOT, DATA VENIA, DECISION OF OBJECT, Deserving, VENIA DATE, BECAUSE REPAIR AND REFORM, THE WELL OF RECONCILIATION OF JUDGEMENT OF unsaturation, WHERE plaintiffs will prove LAW PROPERLY reconciled TO THE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS PROBLEMS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF RESUMPTION AND BALANCED BUDGET TAX THROUGH lEGAL REMEDY AND SCIENTIFIC UNPRECEDENTED IN LAW, BY hEARD THE PROSECUTOR AND UNION ABOUT THAT WITHOUT MARGIN There will DOUBT COMBINING FOR BEING PUBLIC INTEREST RELEVANT And URGENT, TO MINIMIZE THE EFFECTS OF THE ECONOMIC CRISIS NATIONAL, WITH A VIEW TO ITS SOLUTION IN DEFINITIVE.
JOHN VINCENT VAZ and HÉLIO BARRETO DOS SANTOS FILHO, qualified in the records epigrafados come, very respectfully, to the presence from you.Nonconformists, data venia, with the content of V. DJ Decision of 02 last, with due venia,BROUGHTTORT FEATURE REGIMENTAL, in accordance with article 317 of RISTF,Claiming to do so, the following:
I. Aggravating not have any malice to the solution object of the serious problems of the national economic crisis, before this, and on the contrary, with due venia, after much study and analyze all the pros and cons, found solution to harmonize the demands of interests with the interests of solving serious economic problems and federal budget;II. The solution, the result of scientific study, does not affect the course of demand in the case of not being accepted, but affect the course of history and law, if it is accepted in the required manner, and venia date not decided, deserving , in particular the reform of the early V. Decision and establishment of Judgment conditional reconciliation to the success of the proposal;III. Therefore, the Union and the Federal Public Ministry waive actively participate, to be duly and fully demonstrated there is any illegality on the object to initiate the judgment accordingly, there is no harm at all in your installation for the Union and the Federal Public Ministry, so little any profit to the plaintiffs for acceptance of installation, only being viable agreement by proof, not only of viability as the inevitable need to accept the alternative proposal to correct the course of the Brazilian economic policy, seeking the final solution solves problems of Brazil, the Brazilian people, and people and people with which Brazil is related policy and commercially;IV. The Brazil, need only to advance, correct forms of public policy behaviors that only come over time transforming the destination country secure the daredevil, the reversal of this course for renewed growth, and this reversal is part the proposal with concrete measures that will make the foolhardy scenario reliable.Thus, REQUIRE
A) The receipt and acceptance of this interposition of special appeal pursuant now propounded in the manner and terms proposed herein, deigning to admit the valid processing, the presence of their processing requirements, especially, the joined and effects included pays guide the fine imposed in Decision V now defendant;B) The subpoena / notice of worthy coatoras authorities, appellate interests of initiation of MM. Court of Conciliation;C) The Union subpoena related to the establishment of the Mm. Judgment of reconciliation;D) The subpoena MD. Prosecutor's representative regarding the establishment of MM. Judgment of conciliation and agreement;E) The production of evidence in law admitted, however special it up;F) Finally, given the evidence, the application that was not judgment object, with due venia, the establishment of MM. Court of Conciliation and agreement, which will prove, beyond viability condition to resolve the direction of the national economy, with the recovery of credibility of investors and Brazil's economic growth, the Brazilian people, extending the peoples and nations with which Brazil relates, providing the appeal as being full JUSTICE.Terms thatAsks approval.Brasilia, June 5, 2016.
HÉLIO BARRETO DOS SANTOS SONOAB / DF 36606
ANNEX REQUEST PREVIOUS ORA RE RATIFIED:EXCELLENCY MINISTER CELSO DE MELLO, THE SUPREME COURT Exalted FEDERAL, AND, THIS CONDITION OF EMINENT RAPPORTEUR OF MS 33851 AUTOS.
OBJECT: FILING OF TORT REGIMENTAL PRIOR FOR NOT ENABLE THE COURT DEFENDANT AND LEGAL ESTABLISHED IN NEW CPC ORA IN FORCE, AS TO INITIATION OF RECONCILIATION OF JUDGEMENT IN FORM OF ARTICLES 937 AND CPC NEW FOLLOWING IN CONJUNCTION WITH UNDER. ARTICLE 317 OF RISTF, aLLEGING THAT WILL PAY THE cONDEMNATION OF 1% OF PENALTY WHEN THE FINAL PIECE OF FILING WHEN THE PUBLICATION venerating Aresto, WITH dUE VENIA, under appeal.
JOHN VINCENT VAZ and HÉLIO BARRETO DOS SANTOS FILHO, qualified in the records epigrafados come, very respectfully, to the presence from you.,BROUGHTTORT REGIMENTAL PRIOR, which will be re-ratification object when the publication of V. Decision now under attack, AS OF ARTS. 937 AND NEW CPC OF THE FOLLOWING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 317 OF RISTF at the end transcribed,
I. Because of not having been afforded the legal installation of conciliation court, which, beyond the compensation of interest that is due, has the legal content element needed to create the necessary measures to solve the serious national economic problems and, that, being larger than the senses, with due reverence, of any national judge takes into account the larger public interest solution of political crisis and national economic and can not be simply, with due reverence, relegated, because of values that are not available to the judiciary, for afrontarem, with due reverence, with the law and legally established in the new conciliation court CPC, the well intake and worsening of the provision for conciliation judgment installation.II. For such simple and preventive reasons to be rerratificadas in part re-ratification, when the publication of V. Decision now guerreada with due venia, and which will be paid and gathered and a fine of 1% imposed, with the request and support application oral, when the appeals trial, already effected.
Requiring FOR BOTH, THE FOLLOWING:
Based on the foregoing, REQUIRE:
a) the receipt and acceptance of this filing of prior internal grievance to be rerratificadas the good timing when the publication of V. Aresto under now propounded, deigning to admit valid processing;b) The subpoena notification of authorities and Union of appellate interest and establishment of conciliation court;c) The subpoena MD. Public prosecutor, the appellate interest and the establishment of the Conciliation Court;d) the production of evidence in law admitted, no matter how special they present themselves, the right to subpoena prior to the date of judgment to deduce oral arguments, which already requires;e) Finally, the judgment that the early V. decision now contested, with due venia, banishes the judgment required of required conciliation, and legal provision for the reform of V. Decision and dismissed the appeal, with the establishment of the conciliation court, needed much more to the country, the mister of the solution of the serious national economic problems, than to the judgment of losers and winners of the dispute, providing the resource together with peers eminent for be full of righteousness.Terms thatAsks approval.Brasilia, May 18, 2016.
HÉLIO BARRETO DOS SANTOS SONOAB / DF 36606
Annexes the legal basis of the texts of the new CPC and ristf and minutes extract of V. Decision of yesterday now contested:
Art. 937. In the trial session, after the exposure of the case by the rapporteur, the chairman will give the word successively to the applicant, the defendant and, in the case of his speech, the member of the Public Ministry, the non-extendable period of 15 ( fifteen) minutes each in order to support their reasons, in the following cases under the end of the caput of art. 1,021:I - the appeal;II - in the ordinary appeal;III - the special appeal;IV - the extraordinary appeal;V - the divergence embargoes;VI - in the rescission action in mandamus and complaint;VII - (vetoed);VIII - in brought an interlocutory appeal against interlocutory decisions that deal with temporary guardianship of urgency or evidence;IX - in other cases stipulated by law or internal court regulations.§ 1 The oral arguments in the repetitive demands resolution of incident observe the provisions of art. 984, as applicable.§ 2. The prosecutor who wish to deliver oral arguments may apply until the beginning of the session that the case be tried first, without prejudice to the legal preferences.§ 3. In the competence processes originally provided for in section VI, it will be oral arguments in the internal appeal filed against the decision rapporteur extinguish.§ 4. It is permitted to the lawyer with professional address in a different city than where is based the court hold oral arguments through video conference or other technological resource of transmission of sounds and images in real time, since the requests until the day before the session .Art. 938. The preliminary issue raised at trial will be decided before the merit of this not knowing if incompatible with the decision.§ 1. Given the occurrence of remediable defect, including that which may be known of office, the rapporteur will determine the realization or the renewal of the procedural act in the court itself or in the first degree of jurisdiction known to the parties.§ 2 Accomplished diligence mentioned in § 1, the rapporteur, whenever possible, will continue in the appeals trial.§ 3. Acknowledged the need of proof, the rapporteur will turn the trial into an investigation to be held in court or in the first degree of jurisdiction, deciding the appeal after the completion of the statement.§ 4. When not determined by the rapporteur, the measures set out in §§ 1 and 3 may be determined by the competent body to appeal the judgment.Art. 939. If the draft is rejected or if the examination of the substance is compatible with it, will follow the discussion and the trial of the main matter on which should rule the losers in the preliminary judges.Art. 940. The rapporteur or another judge who did not consider able to immediately deliver his vote may request view for a maximum of ten (10) days, after which the feature will be reincluído in question for trial at the next session on the return date .§ 1. If the case is are not returned timely or not requested by the extension period judge maximum over ten (10) days, the President of fractional body the will request to appeal the judgment in the subsequent regular meeting, the agenda of the publication in that is included.§ 2 When ordering the records in accordance with § 1, if the one who made the request for examination has not yet feel able to vote, the Chairman shall convene a substitute to utter vote, as established in the internal court regulations.Art. 941. cast the votes, the President will announce the outcome of the trial, designating the rapporteur to draft the judgment or, if won this, the author's first winner vote.§ 1. The vote may be changed until the time of announcement of the results by the president, except that already given by judge removed or replaced.§ 2. In the judgment of appeal or interlocutory appeal, the decision will be taken in the joint committee, by a vote of three (3) judges.§ 3. The outvoted will necessarily be declared and considered part of the judgment for all legal purposes, including pre-questioning.
RISTF
section IITHE TORT REGIMENTALArt. 317.Except as otherwise provided in these Regulations, it will be wrongregimental, within five days of President of the Court's decision, the Presi-Class of tooth or Rapporteur, which cause injury to the right part.RISTF:art. 305 (trial shipment to the full and AI provision).CPC:art. 545 (5 days) and § 2 of art. 557 (fine: grievance unfounded regimental).Law 8.038 / 99: § 5 of art. 28 (5 days).Law 9,868 / 99: sole paragraph of art. 4 (ADI) - the sole paragraph of art. 15 (ADC).Law 9,882 / 99: § 2 of art. 4 (ADPF).Resolution / STF 186/1999: Regulates payment of the fine provided for in § 2 ofart. 557 of the CPC.CHARTER OF THE STF____________________________________________________________144§ 1The petition shall contain, under penalty of outright rejection, the reasons for the requestreform of aggravated decision.§ 2The special appeal will be filed and without any other formality,submitted to the order prolator, which may reconsider its act or submitthe grievance to the judgment of the plenary or of the Group, who fit the competence,It is also counting your vote.RISTF:art. 6, II,d(Full: AgR) - art. 8, I (Full and class sizes) - art. 21, § 3 (intable) - art. 72 (Rapporteur AgR).§ 3Provided the offense, the Plenary or the Panel will determine what is right.RISTF:art. 83, III (independent agenda) - art. 93, sole paragraph (exemptionjudgment).CPC:art. 544, § 4 (conversion to RE).§ 4The special appeal does not have suspensive effect
Decision: The Class, by unanimous vote, rejected the requests for clarification, and consider them procrastinatórios imposed the distraint of a fine of 1% (one percent) of the adjusted amount of the claim in accordance with the vote of the Rapporteur. Absent, justifiably, the Minister Dias Toffoli. Presidency of the Minister Celso de Mello. 2nd Class, 17/05/2016.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário