Post by xyz3400 on Feb 20, 2024 1:14:34 GMT -6
In recent years, the Superior Courts have turned their attention to analyzing the feasibility of reviewing, by the Judiciary, administrative decisions originating from the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade). Discussions on the topic have also attracted controversy throughout this year. In fact, although in the last decade the STJ has consolidated that “ CADE's decisions do not escape the rule of broad review by the Judiciary, whether in terms of the horizontal aspect (object of the demand) or the vertical aspect (depth of cognition), in honor of the non-defeasibility clause inserted in art. 5th of the CF 'the law will not exclude injury or threat to rights from the Judiciary's assessment' ” [1] , the STF returned to debate the issue in 2019. The case that generated discussion on the topic was Regimental Appeal in Extraordinary Appeal No.
According to the impression of some jurists about the ruling, the 1st Panel of the STF concluded that it was impossible to re-analyze the merits of Cade's technical decisions. In fact, from the initial reading of the ruling, the judges understood that there would be a need to establish a kind of limit on judicial action in competition matters, both due to Cade's specialized knowledge on the subject of economic regulation as Honduras Mobile Number List well as, as he rightly highlighted Professor André de Carvalho Ramos, for the existence of a “ duty of deference of the Judiciary to regulatory decisions ” [2] , resulting from the lack of expertise of the courts to discuss regulatory issues that may give rise to “ systemic effects harmful to administrative regulatory coherence and dynamics. For all these reasons, the ruling highlighted that the Judiciary's incursion into “the administrative merit ” of Cade's decision would be prohibited.
This is the conclusion that must be analyzed. An in-depth examination of the ruling leads to the conclusion that it was not intended to prevent any and all judicial review of Cade's decisions. So much so that the ruling itself highlighted that “ the impossibility, under any aspect, of judicial review of Cade's decisions, including if they were abusive or illegal ”, was never stated. Furthermore, it is highlighted that it is “up to the Judiciary to control the legality of the act ”, and this “ jurisdictional control must be limited to examining the legality or abusiveness of administrative acts ”. Nor could it be otherwise, since, in fact, Cade's decisions do not escape the rule of indefeasibility of the broadest assessment by the Judiciary. The Cade Law itself, along these lines, highlights, in its art. 98, the possibility of filing an action aimed at overturning the Court's decision.
According to the impression of some jurists about the ruling, the 1st Panel of the STF concluded that it was impossible to re-analyze the merits of Cade's technical decisions. In fact, from the initial reading of the ruling, the judges understood that there would be a need to establish a kind of limit on judicial action in competition matters, both due to Cade's specialized knowledge on the subject of economic regulation as Honduras Mobile Number List well as, as he rightly highlighted Professor André de Carvalho Ramos, for the existence of a “ duty of deference of the Judiciary to regulatory decisions ” [2] , resulting from the lack of expertise of the courts to discuss regulatory issues that may give rise to “ systemic effects harmful to administrative regulatory coherence and dynamics. For all these reasons, the ruling highlighted that the Judiciary's incursion into “the administrative merit ” of Cade's decision would be prohibited.
This is the conclusion that must be analyzed. An in-depth examination of the ruling leads to the conclusion that it was not intended to prevent any and all judicial review of Cade's decisions. So much so that the ruling itself highlighted that “ the impossibility, under any aspect, of judicial review of Cade's decisions, including if they were abusive or illegal ”, was never stated. Furthermore, it is highlighted that it is “up to the Judiciary to control the legality of the act ”, and this “ jurisdictional control must be limited to examining the legality or abusiveness of administrative acts ”. Nor could it be otherwise, since, in fact, Cade's decisions do not escape the rule of indefeasibility of the broadest assessment by the Judiciary. The Cade Law itself, along these lines, highlights, in its art. 98, the possibility of filing an action aimed at overturning the Court's decision.