The (Federal Supreme Court) ruled, by seven votes to four, expanding the investigations of authorities even after they left the positions.
The victorious thesis was proposed by the minister. She defines that “subsists even after the departure from office, even if the investigation or criminal action is initiated after its exercise.”
The new understanding has immediate application.
The expansion of the privileged forum weakens one of the main lines of. They argue that the trial would not fit the Supreme, since none of the accused would have a special forum for already leaving the positions.
With the change of understanding of the Supreme, lawsuits against former presidents and ministers for crimes committed during the term and in the exercise of their duties must follow in the Court of (PL) and the former ministers reported, and.
Gilmar was accompanied by ministers Dias Toffoli, Flávio Dino, Alexandre de Moraes, Luis Roberto Barroso and Kassio Nunes Marques. The minority was formed by André Mendonça, Edson Fachin, Cármen Lúcia and Luiz Fux.
The case judged by Tuesday was in court since March 2024, but was interrupted three times by requests for views (more time for analysis). Most were already formed in September 2024, when Nunes Marques, the last to vote, requested a new deadline to formulate his position.
The trial returned to the Virtual Plenary on February 28 and ends at 11:59 pm on Tuesday (11).
The Supreme decision marks a change of posture. In 2018, the court had set a thesis with two main points.
The first established that the special forum would only be valid if the crime was related to the position or the mandate. An authority with a forum prerogative that committed a murder, for example, would not be judged by the Supreme.
The second point predicted that the authority that committed a crime linked to the function of the function would have a privileged forum only while his mandate lasted. Otherwise, it should be taken to the first instance if it has left office.
The new understanding of the Supreme Changes the second point of the thesis set in 2018. From now on, processes against authorities with privileged forum should follow in the court even after the end of the mandates.
“It is necessary to advance on the subject, to establish a broader general criterion, focused on the nature of the criminal fact, and not in elements that can be maneuvered by the accused (stay in office),” says Gilmar.
The discussion of the range of the special forum was reopened as the Supreme Court decided the fate of the investigation of two parliamentarians.
One case involved former Senator Rosa de Freitas (MDB-ES), investigated for passive corruption, bid fraud, money laundering and criminal organization.
The other involves Senator Zequinha Marinho (Somos-PA), who wants to bring to the Supreme a process of the Federal Court of the DF in which he is defendant for an alleged crack scheme when he was a federal deputy.
Gilmar understands that the Supreme’s new position puts an end to a maneuver that could be used by authorities reported by crimes.
“The parliamentarian can, for example, resign before the final allegations phase, to force the file to a judge who, in his eyes, is more sympathetic to the interests of the defense,” he says.
“[A nova tese] It stabilizes the forum for the trial of crimes committed in the exercise of the position and because of it, while purifying the instability of the system and inhibits displacements that produce delays, inefficiency and, at the limit, prescription, “he adds.
