Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 4:05:45 GMT -5
It is from this need to determine even initially the proportion of responsibility of each person who makes up the defendant in the action of dishonesty that emerges the discussion about the possibility of there being or not an equitable patrimonial constriction between the defendants. In other words the STJ will decide whether or not injunctive decisions regarding asset constriction should take into account the seriousness of the conduct and the damage caused by each agent or third party.
This difficulty often occurs because at an initial stage when there is no individual determination of the defendants' responsibility the decree of unavailability is considered joint and therefore ends up affecting everyone's assets equally up to the limit of the damage.
The ideal world would be for the initially what would be in theory the proportion of responsibility of each of those it named as a defendant in a given public civil action for an act of improbity CG Leads in order to prevent a given defendant from who has less responsibility for the unlawful act is affected in the same way by the same constriction order as affecting another defendant with greater responsibility.
It is believed that upon the judgment of Theme the STJ will confirm the current jurisprudence in the sense that if there is solidarity between the co-defendants in the action of administrative improbity the blocking of the total amount determined by the judge may fall on the assets of any one of them blocking the total debt in relation to each of the co-obligors is prohibited in view of the prohibition of excessive caution .
Until the phase arrives in which the quota of each agent considered to be improbable will be delimited which could take years on end all those who are sued in collective actions for acts of improbity will also have their assets in the sights of the unavailability actions without pro rata or equitable division. It is in the hands of the STJ therefore to point to a solution capable of delivering justice.
Furthermore as a rule administrative improbity actions involve a significant number of defendants who jointly and severally are subject to the act of asset constriction initially authorized with the aim of preventing the agent indicated as improbable from eventually disposing of their assets. making it difficult or impossible to reimburse amounts to the public treasury.
The validity of the precautionary measures that seek to ensure that there is sufficient assets to repair the damage caused to the public treasury discussed within the scope of the improbity action is not questioned here. What is being discussed is the lack of proportion and reasonableness which often ends up creating situations of injustice in the broadest sense of the word.
This difficulty often occurs because at an initial stage when there is no individual determination of the defendants' responsibility the decree of unavailability is considered joint and therefore ends up affecting everyone's assets equally up to the limit of the damage.
The ideal world would be for the initially what would be in theory the proportion of responsibility of each of those it named as a defendant in a given public civil action for an act of improbity CG Leads in order to prevent a given defendant from who has less responsibility for the unlawful act is affected in the same way by the same constriction order as affecting another defendant with greater responsibility.
It is believed that upon the judgment of Theme the STJ will confirm the current jurisprudence in the sense that if there is solidarity between the co-defendants in the action of administrative improbity the blocking of the total amount determined by the judge may fall on the assets of any one of them blocking the total debt in relation to each of the co-obligors is prohibited in view of the prohibition of excessive caution .
Until the phase arrives in which the quota of each agent considered to be improbable will be delimited which could take years on end all those who are sued in collective actions for acts of improbity will also have their assets in the sights of the unavailability actions without pro rata or equitable division. It is in the hands of the STJ therefore to point to a solution capable of delivering justice.
Furthermore as a rule administrative improbity actions involve a significant number of defendants who jointly and severally are subject to the act of asset constriction initially authorized with the aim of preventing the agent indicated as improbable from eventually disposing of their assets. making it difficult or impossible to reimburse amounts to the public treasury.
The validity of the precautionary measures that seek to ensure that there is sufficient assets to repair the damage caused to the public treasury discussed within the scope of the improbity action is not questioned here. What is being discussed is the lack of proportion and reasonableness which often ends up creating situations of injustice in the broadest sense of the word.