Minister Luiz, from the (Supreme Federal Court), opened divergence on Tuesday (1st) in the judgment of the appeal against the decision that, former Minister of Governments of Lula and (both of).
The magistrate rejects the overthrow and claims that it is not possible to discontinue all judicial acts against Palocci automatically as a result of previous cancellations.
The Second Panel of the Supreme Court analyzes a PGR (Attorney General of the Republic) appeal against the decision of Minister Dias Toffoli. According to the prosecution’s request, there is no strict correlation between the request for extension annulment of acts against businessman Marcelo Odebrecht and the case of Palocci.
The votes of ministers Kassio Nunes Marques and André Mendonça are still missing.
Voting occurs in a virtual plenary, where ministers place their votes on the platform remotely. The trial continues until next Friday (4).
Palocci was Minister of Lula’s Finance and Dilma Civil House – Charges that left involvement in the scandals investigated in the operation.
For Fachin, the Supreme has rejected several requests for extension because it understands that it is necessary to demonstrate the similarity between the referenced decision and the specific case.
“Absolutely there is no presence of factual identity and similarity between what already decided in the processes indicated as a paradigm and what was claimed in these records,” said the minister.
The former minister’s lawyers asked Toffoli to extend to Palocci the benefits granted to Marcelo Odebrecht, arguing that messages obtained by Operation Spoofing (which investigated those responsible for hackear and leaking prosecutors) pointed to Moro’s partiality and “undeniable procedural framework between prosecution and defense.”
Also, according to Fachin, it is not possible to expand the previous decision to deal with issues related to illicit evidence, assessment of dialogues from public agents obtained in Spoofing e matters that should be discussed and appreciated in the lower instances.
“The facts are substantially distinct from the judgments of this college class in which the extension of effects are sought, as well as demanding the thorough factual-probative analysis, impossible to perform in claims and much less in extension requests as it occurs in this case, without ensuring due process and the contradictory in the competent instances,” says the minister.
Fachin also states that the dialogues made public deserve attention of the judiciary, but in proper processes for it.
“The dialogues obtained unlawfully are serious, deserve to be cleared and the judiciary should give an answer about them, especially since they can give new sense to the facts that are eventually the subject of investigation in the most varied judicial instances. For this, it is essential to observe due process of law, with the official expertise of these dialogues, their adequate contextualization (with the possible production of new evidence) involved, “he said.
