Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 4:03:51 GMT
Furthermore it appears that these judgments did not pay attention to the fact that the procedural rule in question which deals with the exemption of legal costs does not apply to ongoing proceedings before the state courts as will soon be seen.
With jurimetric data the Gerais based on the preparation of the well-founded Technical Note nº DJe pointed out that from January until the month of July of this year just over thousand search Phone Number Data and seizure actions with fiduciary alienation were distributed with almost thousand initial ones coming unaccompanied by the costs payment guide.
Of this universe around thousand shares were subject to withdrawal using as a rule the request for “cancellation of distribution” for the purposes of what is extracted from article of the CPC aiming at the non-collection of costs.
This is the point where financial institutions clearly abuse their rights when distributing search and seizure actions and without delay proceeding to cancel them without paying legal costs.
Evidently this practice — once the creditors' intention to satisfy the credit extrajudicially has been achieved — has repercussions throughout the entire Justice system to the extent that it impacts the cost of judicial service and further overloads the already intense work of civil servants magistrates and other subjects of the process in addition to undeniably causing serious damage to the Treasury.
In light of such considerations what is proposed to be made clear is that legal costs cannot fail to be paid by financial institutions in such circumstances despite being based on the already mentioned article of the CPC.
Although the withdrawal is a unilateral act and the right of the author in the hypothesis raised by the TJ-MG Intelligence Center through the preparation of Technical Note nº there is clearly an action engineered by financial institutions to take advantage of the judicial service in order to impose the burden of the process on the debtor under the effects of DL so that as soon as its intention is satisfied especially with the extrajudicial formalization of an agreement request the cancellation of the distribution.
Certainly there is a clear offense against procedural cooperation as well as the principle of good faith insofar as based on the premise that the financial institution preferred the filing of the action instead of promoting to the maximum extent transactions and pre-procedural agreements with debtors the mere fact of distributing the search and seizure action already attracts to all subjects of the process the guideline of obtaining a decision on the merits fair speedy and effective article CPC.
With jurimetric data the Gerais based on the preparation of the well-founded Technical Note nº DJe pointed out that from January until the month of July of this year just over thousand search Phone Number Data and seizure actions with fiduciary alienation were distributed with almost thousand initial ones coming unaccompanied by the costs payment guide.
Of this universe around thousand shares were subject to withdrawal using as a rule the request for “cancellation of distribution” for the purposes of what is extracted from article of the CPC aiming at the non-collection of costs.
This is the point where financial institutions clearly abuse their rights when distributing search and seizure actions and without delay proceeding to cancel them without paying legal costs.
Evidently this practice — once the creditors' intention to satisfy the credit extrajudicially has been achieved — has repercussions throughout the entire Justice system to the extent that it impacts the cost of judicial service and further overloads the already intense work of civil servants magistrates and other subjects of the process in addition to undeniably causing serious damage to the Treasury.
In light of such considerations what is proposed to be made clear is that legal costs cannot fail to be paid by financial institutions in such circumstances despite being based on the already mentioned article of the CPC.
Although the withdrawal is a unilateral act and the right of the author in the hypothesis raised by the TJ-MG Intelligence Center through the preparation of Technical Note nº there is clearly an action engineered by financial institutions to take advantage of the judicial service in order to impose the burden of the process on the debtor under the effects of DL so that as soon as its intention is satisfied especially with the extrajudicial formalization of an agreement request the cancellation of the distribution.
Certainly there is a clear offense against procedural cooperation as well as the principle of good faith insofar as based on the premise that the financial institution preferred the filing of the action instead of promoting to the maximum extent transactions and pre-procedural agreements with debtors the mere fact of distributing the search and seizure action already attracts to all subjects of the process the guideline of obtaining a decision on the merits fair speedy and effective article CPC.