Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 23:24:12 GMT -6
State law that determines the temporary suspension of discounts relating to loans granted to state public servants usurps the exclusive competence of the Union and violates the principle of legal certainty.
According to the rapporteur, Minister Barroso, the RN law is formally and materially unconstitutional
Carlos Humberto/SCO/STF
With this understanding, the Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court, unanimously, judged this Friday (2/10) Law 10.733/20, of Rio Grande do Norte, to be unconstitutional. The diploma suspended for six months the collection, by financial institutions, of voluntary contributions contracted by civil and military state public servants. And the installments not collected during the period, according to the law, should be inserted at the end of the contract, without interest or fines being added.
The reason for the regulation, according to the state's Legislative Assembly, was to alleviate the crisis situation resulting from the Covid-19 epidemic — regardless of whether employees had experienced a salary reduction.
A decision by the then President of the B2B Lead Court, Minister Dias Toffoli, had already temporarily suspended the effects of the law in July. In a trial held in the virtual Plenary and concluded this Friday, the law from Rio Grande do Norte was definitively declared unconstitutional, unanimously. The request was made by the National Confederation of the Financial System (Consif), in a direct action of unconstitutionality.
According to the rapporteur, Minister Luís Roberto Barroso, only the Union can legislate regarding Civil Law and credit policy, according to article 22, items I and VII, of the Constitution. It turns out that, in this case, the law of Rio Grande do Norte "interferes in all contractual relationships established between state public servants and financial institutions for the voluntary assignment of credit", usurping the Union's competence.
Citing Court precedents, Barroso did not accept the argument of the Legislative Assembly of RN, for whom the law regulated consumer relations. "No matter how broad the concurrent legislative competence in matters of consumer protection is (art. 24, V and VIII, CF), [it] does not authorize Member States to issue rules on contractual relationships", he stated.
Furthermore, the rapporteur also identified the material unconstitutionality of the rules, as they promote "a disproportionate intervention
in validly constituted private relationships", which violates the principle of legal certainty.