The (Supreme Federal Court) formed a majority on Thursday (10) to deny federal deputy appeal (PL-SP) and maintain the decision that condemned him to pay compensation for moral damages to.
The analysis takes place in a virtual plenary – remote environment in which ministers deposit votes and there is no room for debates – in an open session last Friday (4). The trial ends this Friday (11).
Ministers even have this deadline to change votes, ask for a view (more time for analysis) or highlight (when the process is taken to the face -to -face plenary).
The action refers to the episode in May 2020. The reporter went to court after attack with sexual offense, made in a live and in a social network publication.
In live broadcast, Eduardo said, among other things, that she “tried to seduce” to obtain information that was harmful to her father, then president.
To date, the understanding of the Supreme Court, Luis Roberto Barroso, prevails, according to which the appeal of the parliamentary, licensed and currently in the US, cannot be admitted because it does not present sufficient justifications for the revision of the previous decision.
“Indeed, to diverge from the conclusion of the court of origin about the configuration of unlawful act in the specific case, a new examination of the facts and evidence contained in the case, unfeasible action in this procedural phase,” said Barroso.
He was accompanied by ministers Alexandre de Moraes, Carmen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, Dias Toffoli and Flávio Dino. The votes of Edson Fachin, Gilmar Mendes, Luiz Fux, and Kassio Nunes Marques are missing.
The analysis of the case was resumed with the vote of Minister André Mendonça, who had requested view.
He has opened divergence and, in an understanding in which he is isolated so far, said he considered that Eduardo’s statements under analysis are supported by parliamentary immunity.
According to him, immunity is not absolute, but its application must be the rule, and should only be removed when there is no doubt about the binding of manifestations to parliamentary activity, which would not be the case in trial.
Eduardo’s statements, he said, were made “in defense of the suitability of a politician whose reputation has a considerable potential to reach his own public career and in response to the journalist due to an article published in an electoral context, based on statements made by a deponent in the parliamentary committee of inquiry, coupled by the defendant in matters journalists and social networks, in a clear dispute of narratives about relevant issues for the applicant’s political group.”
Or case
In the statements that gave rise to the action, the deputy referred to Hans River do Rio Nascimento, former employee of a mass messaging agency Patrícia in a session of the Fake News CPI in Congress-he.
Hans worked for Yacows, a digital marketing company, in the 2018 election campaign. In December of that year, It showed that a network of companies, including Yacows, resorted to registering mobile chips and thus gaining the shooting lots of messages for the benefit of politicians.
The journalistic investigation was based on justice documents and reports of Hans. But he made untrue statements and insulted the journalist at CPMI by implying that she sought information “in exchange for sex.”
In 2021, for the first instance to indemnify the journalist at R $ 30 thousand, in addition to payment of the procedural costs and attorney’s fees, in decision of the 11th Civil Court of São Paulo.
In the same year, the TJ-SP (Court of Justice of São Paulo) denied his appeal, in the first instance and raised the amount of compensation to R $ 35 thousand. The decision was made unanimously by the judges of the 8th Chamber of Private Law.
The parliamentarian also appealed to the (Superior Court of Justice), which rejected the appeal unanimously in May 2024. He initially maintained that the amount of compensation was exorbitant. The Fourth Panel of the Court, however, understood that the amount was not disproportionate and that there was no revision.
In October 2024, the court ordered, after the non -payment of the amount within the given period.
R $ 35,000 of compensation are included in the calculation, as well as procedural costs, attorney’s fees and penalties regarding non -payment.
