The (Supreme Federal Court) has ruled that the courts of mayors are responsible for the judgment of mayors’ accounts, ending a scenario of uncertainty about who would have the authority to do this analysis.
The decision, on February 21, occurred in analysis of an argument of non -compliance with fundamental precept (ADPF) filed by
Legal insecurity was due to a 2016 STF trial, which said that the competence to analyze acts of mayors is from the municipal councils, and that the courts of accounts would be auxiliary function, to be ratified by the councilors.
Based on this decision, several state courts have begun to annul sanctions applied by the courts of accounts to mayors who worked as expense orders.
Even with the Supreme Court thesis dealing only with the electoral effects, some judicial decisions of the TJs went further, nullifying fines and debit imputations for damage to the treasury.
“The final result demonstrates the strength and importance of the Courts of Auditors system in the protection of public assets and the supervision of public administration,” says Atricon President Edilson Silva.
The STF’s decision states that the Courts of Auditors may apply sanctions outside the electoral sphere, regardless of ratification by the city councils.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
