Post by account_disabled on Jan 25, 2024 1:35:12 GMT -5
As fees are also due in appeals against a decision made in compliance with a sentence, the Court of Justice of the Federal District established a thesis in favor of lawyers and increased the fees to 12% in a recently analyzed case. The 5th Civil Panel of the court found that there was an omission in the decision that did not increase the fees set by 10% by the first instance in the analysis of the interlocutory appeal. Pisco e Rodrigues Advogados acted in the case and filed motions for clarification pointing out the omission. For the rapporteur of the case, judge Robson Barbosa de Azevedo, considering that the increase in fees is provided for in article 85, paragraph 11, of the new Code of Civil Procedure, the increase must apply to the previously fixed amount.
He considered the additional work and Buy Phone Number List zeal in conducting the process to convict the aggravating party, who was unsuccessful in the litigation. In the specific case, the monocratic decision judged the challenge to compliance with the sentence and partially accepted the request to order an insurer to correct the outstanding premium installments due to an insured party. The decision also determined that the remaining balance would be subject to a fine of 10% and legal fees of 10%. The company filed an appeal against this decision, which was later dismissed. The device is an essential part of the prosthesis, without which it becomes useless. Without knowing about the return of the object, the author was informed that the item was in the process of being destroyed at customs, due to the cargo being abandoned by the importer.
As he was unable to release the product through administrative means, he filed a request for early relief, which was partially granted, to avoid the penalty of forfeiture of the asset. Subsequently, the prosthesis was released in full by the Judiciary. The Union appealed and requested a reform of the sentence. He preliminarily supported the passive illegitimacy of the Attorney General of the National Treasury, as he understood that this was not a question of a customs tax nature, but one of administrative pending, with the necessary consent of Anvisa. It also alleged, on the merits, the legality of the retention of the prosthesis by the customs authority at Viracopos airport, due to the lack of Anvisa's consent, under the terms of article 27, paragraph 2, of Normative Instruction 551/2005. However, in TRF-3, the 6th Panel did not accept the Union's arguments and understood that the legislation guarantees the author the fundamental rights to health and freedom of movement.
He considered the additional work and Buy Phone Number List zeal in conducting the process to convict the aggravating party, who was unsuccessful in the litigation. In the specific case, the monocratic decision judged the challenge to compliance with the sentence and partially accepted the request to order an insurer to correct the outstanding premium installments due to an insured party. The decision also determined that the remaining balance would be subject to a fine of 10% and legal fees of 10%. The company filed an appeal against this decision, which was later dismissed. The device is an essential part of the prosthesis, without which it becomes useless. Without knowing about the return of the object, the author was informed that the item was in the process of being destroyed at customs, due to the cargo being abandoned by the importer.
As he was unable to release the product through administrative means, he filed a request for early relief, which was partially granted, to avoid the penalty of forfeiture of the asset. Subsequently, the prosthesis was released in full by the Judiciary. The Union appealed and requested a reform of the sentence. He preliminarily supported the passive illegitimacy of the Attorney General of the National Treasury, as he understood that this was not a question of a customs tax nature, but one of administrative pending, with the necessary consent of Anvisa. It also alleged, on the merits, the legality of the retention of the prosthesis by the customs authority at Viracopos airport, due to the lack of Anvisa's consent, under the terms of article 27, paragraph 2, of Normative Instruction 551/2005. However, in TRF-3, the 6th Panel did not accept the Union's arguments and understood that the legislation guarantees the author the fundamental rights to health and freedom of movement.