Post by SHIHAB on Jan 11, 2024 0:41:45 GMT -5
State law cannot, under the pretext of supplementing and specifying the meaning of a federal standard, alter the meaning of the regulation in such a way as to exclude its application to the hypothesis in which it should apply. Fellipe Sampaio/STF Minister Rosa Weber's understanding was followed unanimously in the Virtual Plenary Fellipe Sampaio/STF With this understanding, the Federal Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of article 51, paragraph 1, of Law 5,695/2016, and article 53, paragraph 1, of Law 5,950/2017, both of the Federal District. The provisions provide for the calculation of the limit of total personnel expenses related to expenses with the provision of public health services in the DF.
The action was filed by the former Attorney WhatsApp Number List General of the Republic, Rodrigo Janot. According to him, the district law seeks to mischaracterize outsourcing as a personnel expense and invaded the Union's legislative competence to provide for general budget rules by regulating the matter differently from the Fiscal Responsibility Law (Complementary Law 101/2000). The rapporteur of the case, minister Rosa Weber, pointed out that, by proposing that the hiring of third parties whose purpose is to provide public health services should not be qualified as a replacement for public servants and employees, the district law anticipated the interpreter of the federal legislation.
And it did so contrary to article 18, paragraph 1, of the Fiscal Responsibility Law, which determines that these contracts must be accounted for as “other personnel expenses”. “In matters of concurrent jurisdiction, the application of the complementary local norm (state or district) cannot mean a mere departure from the general norm. As can also be seen from article 24, paragraph 4, of the Constitution, the existence of a general federal norm preempts the effectiveness of the local general norm, insofar as it is contrary to it”, he recorded in his vote. The rapporteur's understanding was unanimously followed by the Supreme Court's panel in a trial that took place in the Virtual Plenary.
The action was filed by the former Attorney WhatsApp Number List General of the Republic, Rodrigo Janot. According to him, the district law seeks to mischaracterize outsourcing as a personnel expense and invaded the Union's legislative competence to provide for general budget rules by regulating the matter differently from the Fiscal Responsibility Law (Complementary Law 101/2000). The rapporteur of the case, minister Rosa Weber, pointed out that, by proposing that the hiring of third parties whose purpose is to provide public health services should not be qualified as a replacement for public servants and employees, the district law anticipated the interpreter of the federal legislation.
And it did so contrary to article 18, paragraph 1, of the Fiscal Responsibility Law, which determines that these contracts must be accounted for as “other personnel expenses”. “In matters of concurrent jurisdiction, the application of the complementary local norm (state or district) cannot mean a mere departure from the general norm. As can also be seen from article 24, paragraph 4, of the Constitution, the existence of a general federal norm preempts the effectiveness of the local general norm, insofar as it is contrary to it”, he recorded in his vote. The rapporteur's understanding was unanimously followed by the Supreme Court's panel in a trial that took place in the Virtual Plenary.