THE PERFORMANCE OF THE GENERAL CONTROLLERSHIP OF THE UNION (GCU) AND THE GUARANTEE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY IN DISCIPLINARY ACTIVITY: : A STUDY BASED ON THE CULTURE OF PRECEDENTS
The research problem of this study is portrayed in the following question: the General Controllership of the Union (GCU) acted with a view to the production of administrative precedents, in its disciplinary activity, before the edition of article 30 of the New Law of Introduction to the Norms of Bra...
| Autores: | , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2021 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM) |
| Repositorio: | Revista Eletrônica do Curso de Direito da UFSM |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/42620 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://periodicos.ufsm.br/revistadireito/article/view/42620 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | CGU NLINDB precedentes processo disciplinar segurança jurídica. disciplinary activity precedents legal certainty actividad disciplinaria seguridad jurídica |
| Sumario: | The research problem of this study is portrayed in the following question: the General Controllership of the Union (GCU) acted with a view to the production of administrative precedents, in its disciplinary activity, before the edition of article 30 of the New Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law (NLINBL)? Based on the empirical analysis of data extracted from the body's Knowledge Bank, on the hypothetical-deductive method and on the bibliographic research, the study starts from the hypothesis that the CGU was already on a path suitable for the production of administrative precedents, which is confirmed by the verification of the production of instructions, statements, normative ordinances and technical notes before the NLINBL. To this end, observed an existing and sufficient normative framework for decisions to follow a culture guided by the clarity of the reason for deciding and the need to justify overruling or distinguishing. In short, the novelty brought by article 30 is the mandatory self-binding for the Public Administration. |
|---|