Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 6:57:19 GMT
The Special Body of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul decided to wait for a position from the Federal Supreme Court before deciding the merits on the issue of the deadline for payment of Small Value Requests (RPVs). The matter is vitally important because the deadline has an impact on interest. The suspension of the trial was decided in the session on Monday afternoon (/). The ruling has not yet been published.
Direct Unconstitutionality Action ,, which is being processed in the Supreme Court, deals with the increase in the deadline for payment of RPVs, with a period different from that determined by the Federal Constitution.
In Rio Grande do Sul, article of State Law ,/ determines that RPVs worth up to seven minimum wages have a payment period of days. For other credits, the deadline is days. However, the Federal Constitution provides for a payment deadline of days for all RPVs.
The case
The Incident of Unconstitutionality, which led to the BTC Number Data analysis of the State Law, was proposed by the th Civil Chamber of the TJ-RS, during the trial of the Interlocutory Appeal , held in the session on February th, under the report of judge Eduardo Uhlein .
During the trial of a case, the judges were faced with the difference in the deadlines granted by state and federal legislation. As matters dealing with unconstitutional laws are the responsibility of the Special Body of the TJ-RS, it was called upon to comment.
Thus concluded rapporteur Uhlein: ''It is unavoidable, therefore, to send the case to the Special Body of this Court, to affirm, if it so wishes, the unconstitutionality of what is established in art. nd, caput and § st of State Law no. ,/, as provided for in art. of the Magna Carta and art. , of the Internal Regulations of this State Court, and as is still clear from the statement of Binding Precedent No. of the Federal Supreme Court. It is worth noting, due to its relevance, that ADI n. , proposed by the Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association, which challenges, in full, the State Law in question.''
The trial
The rapporteur of the matter in the Special Body was judge Carlos Cini Marchionatti, who judged the Incident of Unconstitutionality to be valid — and not the merits of the matter. The decision was made by majority, with votes in favor and eight against.
Direct Unconstitutionality Action ,, which is being processed in the Supreme Court, deals with the increase in the deadline for payment of RPVs, with a period different from that determined by the Federal Constitution.
In Rio Grande do Sul, article of State Law ,/ determines that RPVs worth up to seven minimum wages have a payment period of days. For other credits, the deadline is days. However, the Federal Constitution provides for a payment deadline of days for all RPVs.
The case
The Incident of Unconstitutionality, which led to the BTC Number Data analysis of the State Law, was proposed by the th Civil Chamber of the TJ-RS, during the trial of the Interlocutory Appeal , held in the session on February th, under the report of judge Eduardo Uhlein .
During the trial of a case, the judges were faced with the difference in the deadlines granted by state and federal legislation. As matters dealing with unconstitutional laws are the responsibility of the Special Body of the TJ-RS, it was called upon to comment.
Thus concluded rapporteur Uhlein: ''It is unavoidable, therefore, to send the case to the Special Body of this Court, to affirm, if it so wishes, the unconstitutionality of what is established in art. nd, caput and § st of State Law no. ,/, as provided for in art. of the Magna Carta and art. , of the Internal Regulations of this State Court, and as is still clear from the statement of Binding Precedent No. of the Federal Supreme Court. It is worth noting, due to its relevance, that ADI n. , proposed by the Federal Council of the Brazilian Bar Association, which challenges, in full, the State Law in question.''
The trial
The rapporteur of the matter in the Special Body was judge Carlos Cini Marchionatti, who judged the Incident of Unconstitutionality to be valid — and not the merits of the matter. The decision was made by majority, with votes in favor and eight against.
