Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 1:07:56 GMT -5
Jefferson Did Not Attend. Barbosa Explained That the Dates of the Hearings Did Not Coincide and There Was Even an Instruction for the Appointments to Be Communicated to the Office So That No Interrogations Were Scheduled on the Same Date. Among the Points Alleged by the Defense and Rejected by the Rapporteur Is Also the Lack of Updating of the Process at the Stf Secretariat, Which, According to Roberto Jefferson's Lawyer, Would Be Preventing the Defense from Knowing the Files Before the Hearings. According to the Minister, the Digitalization Is Carried Out Within a Time Frame Considered Good and the Physical Records Are Available in Court for Consultation by the Defense. Other Issues Claimed by Jefferson's Defense Concern the Publication of the Ruling; Impossibility of Asking Questions to the Former President of the Republic, Listed as a Witness in the Process; Jefferson's Confrontation with a Witness and Provision of Witnesses' Addresses. with Information from the Stf Press Office.expropriation Price Must Follow Table
the Nd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice Decided That the Value of Compensation for Expropriation of Land Cannot Serve as Unjust Enrichment and Must Correspond to the Exact Size of the Property. the Understanding Was Established in the Judgment of a Special Appeal Filed by a Company Against the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (Incra). the Company Questioned the Ruling Austria Phone Numbers List of the Federal Regional Court of the St Region, Which Admitted the Values Of R$ Million for Bare Land, and R$ Million for Improvements, with the Corrections Established by Incra. the Trf- Understood That the Value Offered by Incra Would Be Within the Region's Market Values, Despite the Judicial Expert Having Established Higher Values. the Company Claimed That the Trf- Decision Violated the Principle of Fair Compensation.
This Is Because the Decided Value Would Be Lower Than the Market. He Also Argued That the Compensation Had Been Calculated Based on the Measured Area and Not That Registered at a Notary's Office, Which, Due to the Presumption of Legitimacy, Is Only Removed If Any Illegality Is Proven. in His Vote, Reporting Minister Mauro Campbell Declared That the Decision of the Second Instance Was Well Founded. and That the Value Offered by Incra Is in Accordance with the Reference Table of Prices and Land and Properties in the Region. Regarding the Area, the Minister Stated That According to Stj Jurisprudence, the Calculation of Compensation Must Be Based on the Area Registered with a Registry Office, but in This Case, the Principle of Fair Compensation Prevails and the Calculation Should Correspond to the Real Extent of the Property. “It Makes No Sense to Inseparably Link the Value of the Compensation to the Registered Area, as Such a Procedure Could Lead, in Certain Cases, to Unjust Enrichment,” He Declared. Finally, It Was Decided That the Undisputed Part Must Be Paid Immediately. and That Any Payment for the Remaining Area Must Be Deposited in Court Until It Is Determined Who Is Entitled to This Amount. with Information from the Editorial and Press Coordination of the Superior Court of Justiceminimum Wage Cannot Be Linked to Others.
the Nd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice Decided That the Value of Compensation for Expropriation of Land Cannot Serve as Unjust Enrichment and Must Correspond to the Exact Size of the Property. the Understanding Was Established in the Judgment of a Special Appeal Filed by a Company Against the National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform (Incra). the Company Questioned the Ruling Austria Phone Numbers List of the Federal Regional Court of the St Region, Which Admitted the Values Of R$ Million for Bare Land, and R$ Million for Improvements, with the Corrections Established by Incra. the Trf- Understood That the Value Offered by Incra Would Be Within the Region's Market Values, Despite the Judicial Expert Having Established Higher Values. the Company Claimed That the Trf- Decision Violated the Principle of Fair Compensation.
This Is Because the Decided Value Would Be Lower Than the Market. He Also Argued That the Compensation Had Been Calculated Based on the Measured Area and Not That Registered at a Notary's Office, Which, Due to the Presumption of Legitimacy, Is Only Removed If Any Illegality Is Proven. in His Vote, Reporting Minister Mauro Campbell Declared That the Decision of the Second Instance Was Well Founded. and That the Value Offered by Incra Is in Accordance with the Reference Table of Prices and Land and Properties in the Region. Regarding the Area, the Minister Stated That According to Stj Jurisprudence, the Calculation of Compensation Must Be Based on the Area Registered with a Registry Office, but in This Case, the Principle of Fair Compensation Prevails and the Calculation Should Correspond to the Real Extent of the Property. “It Makes No Sense to Inseparably Link the Value of the Compensation to the Registered Area, as Such a Procedure Could Lead, in Certain Cases, to Unjust Enrichment,” He Declared. Finally, It Was Decided That the Undisputed Part Must Be Paid Immediately. and That Any Payment for the Remaining Area Must Be Deposited in Court Until It Is Determined Who Is Entitled to This Amount. with Information from the Editorial and Press Coordination of the Superior Court of Justiceminimum Wage Cannot Be Linked to Others.