The First Panel of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) unanimously denied an appeal by the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) that challenged points in the decision that declared the end of compulsory retirement as the maximum punishment for magistrates. The trial was held this Tuesday (30).
Minister Flávio Dino said that “there is an attempt to re-discuss the merits” of the process. “There is no new argument brought by the Attorney General’s Office,” he stated.
In May, the collegiate decided to maintain Dino’s decision which determined that compulsory retirement as a disciplinary punishment for judges can no longer be applied because it is incompatible with the changes made in Constitutional Amendment (EC) 103/2019, which resulted in the Social Security reform.
InfoMoney Tool
Download now (and for free)!
The PGR questioned the point of the decision that attributed to the Attorney General’s Office (AGU) the function of filing the action for loss of position of magistrates, and another that determines that these actions must be judged by the Supreme Court.
The body also maintained that the Social Security reform, despite suppressing the section of the Constitution that dealt with compulsory retirement, did not prohibit its application. “There still remains a contradiction: the ruling recognizes that EC 103/2019 ‘has not expressly prohibited retirement-punishment’, but then concludes that it is revoked”, he highlighted.
In his vote, Dino denied that the STF judgment is harmful. “Judges remain covered for life, but this is not a protective shield when committing very serious infractions. Considering that the filing of legal action before the STF would be harmful to the magistrate is the same as saying that no process originally processed in this Court – such as those submitted by virtue of parliamentary prerogatives – is developed with smoothness and commitment to the realization of justice, which disregards the structural relevance of the Supreme Court”, wrote minister Flávio Dino in his vote.
