The case concerns a man accused of allegedly

[anik4200]

The case concerns a man accused of allegedly

Ccommitting two homicides. The defendant was pronounced for trial by the Jury Court. He filed an appeal, which was denied by the TJ-RJ. Then, the defense tried to prevent the pronouncement through a special appeal and extraordinary appeal. Again, the state court denied proceeding with both pleadings. The defense then filed an appeal in a special appeal. The second vice-president of the TJ-RJ was not aware of the case and ordered the case to be sent to the district of origin, to submit the defendant to the popular jury. To the STJ, lawyer Raphael Henrique Dutra Rigueira alleged usurpation of the court's jurisdiction. According to him, only the higher courts can examine the admissibility requirements of the appeal in special appeal and extraordinary appeal.



Paciornik highlighted subparagraph "f" of item I of article 105 of the Constitution, which establishes the STJ's competence to "originally process and judge the complaint to preserve its competence and guarantee the authority of its decisions". Furthermore, according to article 1,042 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal filed against the decision of the court of origin that does not admit a special appeal must be sent to the STJ — unless the inadmissibility was based on the judgment of a repetitive appeal, wh Special Phone Number Data ich was not the case. Thus, the TJ-RJ judge carried out an "improper analysis of the admissibility of the appeal". As a result, the state court "usurped the STJ's jurisdiction by carrying out a preliminary ruling regarding the grievance." According to Rigueira, "Brazilian criminal procedural legislation allows the subsidiary application of the CPC in criminal proceedings, especially in the processing of some appeals addressed to higher courts as appeals in special appeals".Bidding for the concession of public services is only mandatory when there is competition between private individuals.







And the Judiciary must respect the models for exploring activities chosen by the Executive and Legislative branches. Nelson Jr./SCO/STF Luiz Fux said that the requirements for granting authorization are rigorous Nelson Jr./SCO/STF With this understanding, the Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court, by majority vote, declared this Wednesday (29/3) the constitutionality of the changes in legislation that allow the offering of interstate and international public passenger transport services without prior bidding, upon simple authorization. Seven ministers voted for the constitutionality of the model. Four judges disagreed and understood that there needed to be a bidding process. The trial concluded with the votes of ministers Cármen Lúcia and Rosa Weber, president of the court, who followed the divergence. Cármen opined that road passenger transport requires prior bidding.

[TBustah!]