Submitted by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2017-08-09T16:27:05Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
EduardoBorgesMilhomemDissertacao2016.pdf: 1205417 bytes, checksum: afc9b0c3f5e23392aeca9f6e745e55c0 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2017-08-09T16:27:20Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
EduardoBorgesMilhomemDissertacao2016.pdf: 1205417 bytes, checksum: afc9b0c3f5e23392aeca9f6e745e55c0 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-09T16:27:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
EduardoBorgesMilhomemDissertacao2016.pdf: 1205417 bytes, checksum: afc9b0c3f5e23392aeca9f6e745e55c0 (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2016-09-24 / This paper approaches the legitimacy of the Public Prosecutor's Office to file civil actions in
the public interest on tax matters. Regarding such theme, the first subject to be addressed herein
shall be the prohibition contained in sole paragraph of Article 1 of the Public Interest Civil
Action Act, which prohibits the use of such instrument in claims involving taxes. Such rule,
when confronted with the constitutional principle of non-obviation of jurisdiction, in its
collective dimension, is deemed as unconstitutional in this paper, because, in such case, a
collision of fundamental rights capable of justifying such a restriction of access to the collective
action, could not be verified. Along with the legal issue, this research analyzes the precedents
of the Supreme Federal Court on the subject, once it was verified that, already in the
systematization of general repercussion, the court denied the legitimacy of the Public
Prosecutor's Office to file civil actions in the public interest in favor of taxpayers, whereas such
actions were admitted when the participation of the Public Prosecutor's Office was in favor of
tax authorities. It turns out that after confronting such decision with the specialized doctrine,
including previous precedents of the Supreme Federal Court itself, it appears that none of the
commands, i.e., the one lacking standing (in the case of actions in favor of taxpayers), and the
one with standing (in the case of defense of the tax authorities) should be regarded in a
restrictive way, as if worthy of being relativized, because it is necessary to verify, in a concrete
case, if there is social interest capable of supporting the legitimacy of the Public Prosecutor's
Office. In the case of actions defending taxpayers, such social interest can be demonstrated both
by the social dimension inherent to the majority of tax relations and by the broad scope of the
claim discussed herein, or even by the taxpayers??? condition. Regarding the demands in favor of
tax authorities, although the conclusion is similar, it is more restrictive considering that the
legitimacy of the Public Prosecutor's Office shall be characterized only when there is evidence
of the existence of primary public interest justifying the actions of the ???parquet???. / O trabalho versa sobre a legitimidade do Minist??rio P??blico para propor a????o civil p??blica em
mat??ria tribut??ria. Para avan??ar em tal tem??tica, aborda-se, inicialmente, a veda????o contida no
par??grafo ??nico do artigo 1?? da Lei da A????o Civil P??blica, que pro??be a utiliza????o
do instrumento em pretens??es que envolvam tributos. Regra esta que, ao ser confrontada com
o princ??pio constitucional da inafastabilidade de jurisdi????o em sua dimens??o coletiva, ??
considerada inconstitucional neste estudo. Isso porque n??o se verifica na hip??tese uma colis??o
de direitos fundamentais apta a justificar tal restri????o de acesso ao processo coletivo. Al??m da
quest??o legal, a presente pesquisa analisa a jurisprud??ncia do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre
o assunto, verificando-se que a corte, j?? na sistem??tica da repercuss??o geral, negou a
legitimidade do Minist??rio P??blico para propor a????o civil p??blica em favor do contribuinte ao
passo que admitiu tais a????es quando a atua????o do Minist??rio P??blico for em favor do Estado.
Ocorre que, ap??s confrontar tais julgados com a doutrina especializada e inclusive com
precedentes do pr??prio supremo, constata-se que tais comandos, de ilegitimidade (no caso de
a????es em favor do contribuinte) e de legitimidade (no caso de defesa da Fazenda P??blica), n??o
devem ser vistos de forma taxativa, merecendo relativiza????es. Isso porque ?? necess??ria uma
verifica????o se, no caso concreto, existe interesse social apto a fundamentar a legitimidade do
Minist??rio P??blico. No caso das a????es em defesa do contribuinte, esse interesse social pode ser
demonstrado tanto pela dimens??o social inata ?? maioria das rela????es tribut??rias, como pelo largo
alcance da pretens??o discutida, ou ainda, pela condi????o dos contribuintes. Com rela????o ??s
demandas em favor do Patrim??nio P??blico, a conclus??o ?? semelhante, todavia, mais restritiva,
tendo em vista que a legitimidade do Minist??rio P??blico ficar?? caracterizada somente quando
se evidenciar a exist??ncia de interesse p??blico prim??rio que justifique a atua????o do parquet.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:bdtd.ucb.br:tede/2207 |
| Date | 24 September 2016 |
| Creators | Milhomem, Eduardo Borges |
| Contributors | Prudente, Ant??nio Souza |
| Publisher | Universidade Cat??lica de Bras??lia, Programa Strictu Sensu em Direito, UCB, Brasil, Escola de Humanidade e Direito |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UCB, instname:Universidade Católica de Brasília, instacron:UCB |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0145 seconds