Post by SHIHAB on Jan 11, 2024 0:01:13 GMT -5
The judicial decision, when considered binding by the legal system, has a clear normative nature, in harmony with the plurality of formal sources of Law, which are not restricted to laws. Within the scope of concentrated control of constitutionality, definitive decisions on the merits, handed down by the Federal Supreme Court, in direct actions of unconstitutionality and in declaratory actions of constitutionality produce effectiveness against everyone and a binding effect, in relation to other bodies of the Judiciary and public administration direct and indirect, at the federal, state and municipal levels (article 102, ยง 2, of the 1988 Constitution).
Furthermore, the STF may, ex officio or by provocation, WhatsApp Number List through a decision of two thirds of its members, after repeated decisions on constitutional matters, approve a summary that, upon its publication in the official press, has a binding effect in relation to other bodies.
of the Judiciary and direct and indirect public administration, at the federal, state and municipal levels, as well as reviewing or canceling them, in the manner established by law (article 103-A of the Constitution). A precedent is understood as the judicial decision given in a certain case submitted to the Judiciary, in which the ratio decidendi (i.e., the reason for deciding or the determining reason) starts to serve as a parameter for the judgment of other demands [1] .
Furthermore, the STF may, ex officio or by provocation, WhatsApp Number List through a decision of two thirds of its members, after repeated decisions on constitutional matters, approve a summary that, upon its publication in the official press, has a binding effect in relation to other bodies.
of the Judiciary and direct and indirect public administration, at the federal, state and municipal levels, as well as reviewing or canceling them, in the manner established by law (article 103-A of the Constitution). A precedent is understood as the judicial decision given in a certain case submitted to the Judiciary, in which the ratio decidendi (i.e., the reason for deciding or the determining reason) starts to serve as a parameter for the judgment of other demands [1] .