Public Administration

Posted August 11th, 2015 by Sandra

In way to as many norms, Provisional remedy 2,183/01 added the only paragraph to art. 10 17 of the Decree n 3,365/41, decreeing that &#039 is extinct; ' in five years the right to consider action that aims at indemnity for decurrent restrictions of acts of the Pblico.&#039 Power; '. In the writing adopted in previous new editions of this same provisional remedy, was explicit that the limitation five year would subject, also, ' ' action of indemnity for administrative apossamento or dispossession indireta.' '. The STF, liminarmente, specifically declared unconstitutional this part of the device, in the ADIMC 2.260/DF, of 14.02.2001. In the posterior new editions of the provisional remedy in I comment, the Executive removed of the only paragraph of art. 10 of the Decree n 3,365/41, that &#039 was thus express; ' The right is extinguished in five years to consider action that aims at the indemnity for decurrent restrictions of acts of the Pblico.&#039 Power; '. Observed such questions, such only paragraph of art is concluded that. 10 of the Decree n 3,365/41, in the vision of the STF, is only applicable in the actions against the Public Administration who involves the rights of personal nature. Verified these questions, possibility for your sources confides: To consider that period of limitation of the indirect suit against state started to be of 15 (fifteen) years, for analogy to the current stated period of the extraordinary processory title; To understand that the stated period is five year, having in account the fact from that the effective Civil Code more does not distinguish limitations on the basis of the real nature or personal of the action the one that they of relate, what it would move away the objections to the use from art. 1 of Decree 20,910/32 for end to determine the period of limitation of the indirect suits against state.

Comments are closed.