1

Action Challenge to Request Registration Application

Celestino Ribeiro Adriano Barros Lawyer and author of newspaper articles, magazi
nes, newsletters, websites, and others Contents: 1) Getting Started, 2) Objectiv
es of the AIRC, 4) cause of action; 5) Legitimacy Active, 6) Legitimacy Passive;
7) The procedure of candidate for a political candidacy, 8) Procedure for the i
nitiation of the AIRC, 9) Jurisdiction and assignment; 10) Jurisdiction in relat
ion to electoral crimes; 11) Resources; 12) Resolution 22.156/06 the Superior El
ectoral Court; 13) The flowchart of the suit challenging the registration Jobs f
ollows the following order; 13.1) Time: (mandatory and continuous); 13.2) Tests,
13.3) Trial. 1) Getting Started: The AIRC is the process that aims to prevent c
ourt approval of registration of a candidate in elections. For this reason it ha
s existence at some time in the electoral process, which begins in the first fiv
e days of publication of application for registration and closing on August 23 (
for the 2006 elections), when all actions have to be definitely judged. An objec
tion must relate to one of the many requirements for eligibility, then because i
ts prediction is in LC No. 64/90, which is precisely the law of ineligibility. P
rofessor Mark Ramayana, so terse, gives the legal basis of this action: The arts
. 3 to 17 of Complementary Law No. 64/90 (Laws of ineligibility), govern the sui
t challenging the registration of candidates. For each election, the Supreme Ele
ctoral Tribunal sends a resolution concerning the registration of candidates to
form the normative framework. To enroll, even the arts. 10-16 of the Law 9.504/9
7 (Election Law), dealing with registration of candidates, and the arts. 82-102
of the Election Code. Marcos Ramayana. Electoral law. 4th edition. Rio de Janeir
o: Impetus, 2005, pp. 172. This action is intended to prevent the acceptance of
candidacy "candidate to candidate," which does not meet the statutory requiremen
ts for eligibility. The scope of this discernibility Action Challenge Registrati
on is wide. And it is the first opportunity that the Electoral Court must decide
on the matter. The matters which are brought as cause of these challenges somet
imes bring themselves within its context, a constitutional nature and when the s
ubject matter is constitutional does not concern the institution of estoppel in
a possible future outbreak, verbi gratia, the Action Challenge to elective offic
e, which is another action on the constitutional level.
2 It is enough that so-called eligibility conditions are present so that I can e
xercise these powers? Could be engaging in acts of campaigning before the regist
ration application? Evidently not! In fact, the so-called eligibility conditions
are true conditions recorded, in the sense that they are assumptions, elements
of factual support complex that brings the public to record direct subjective ap
plication. This is the fundamental point that the doctrine does not perceive wit
h sufficient clarity: The conditions for eligibility and eligibility for the int
erim figure of the registration application. Who goes to court asking for the re
gistration of candidacy, has said that has all the required assumptions, which g
ive entitlement to registration. It is by granting the request by the Electoral
Court, which examines whether or not the right to record, which consumes the reg
istration application, rising to eligibility (subjective right to be elected). W
ith the application for registration has no right expectation (ie, the expectati
on of law), not even the right audience. For no other reason, is to say that the
suit challenging the registration Candidate (AIRC) is intended to bring the sta
tement denying the existence of the right to register the application, a right w
hich arises from the fulfillment of eligibility conditions (proper and improper
), des course that National does not fall under any restraint applied ineligibil
ity. (Emphasis added) Adriano Soares da Costa. Electoral Law Institutions, Belo
Horizonte: Del Rey, 2000, pp. Usque 230 233.
In the suit challenging the registration of applicants must be present attorney,
because postulatória need the ability to promote it. This action is contradicto
ry, legal defense are addressed various issues relating to constitutional and in
fra. Thus, only through a lawyer can accept the nomination court. But the matter
 is controversial and there is a part of the doctrine that the lawyer considers
it unnecessary wounding the rationale of article 133 of the Magna Carta: Section
133. The lawyer is indispensable to the administration of justice,€is inviolabl
e for his acts and statements in the profession, within the limits of the law. (
CF).
With his unique mastery Professor Joel Jose Candido, with crystalline clarity, h
e says about the importance of finding a lawyer to substantial justice and says:
... It is essential action is filed by defense counsel, demanding to be here, f
aithfully implement the provisions of art. 36 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
the art. 1, l, part 1, the
3 Act 8906 of 04/07/1994 (Statute Law and the OAB). This is the process of court
litigation, which operates the res judicata, the rationale of the requirement f
or defense counsel representing the parties or candidates. The question, however
, is not peaceful in the doctrine and jurisprudence. Joel Jose Candido Brazilian
Electoral Law. 11th ed., 3rd edition, revised and updated. Bauru, São Paulo: Ed
ipro, 2005, pp. 133.
2) Objectives of the AIRC: According to the lesson of the Master Joel Joseph Can
dido, "The goal of this dispute, which has the legal nature of a true lawsuit, i
s to prevent the registration approval of the candidacy of appeal. If you've got
the record, the ultimate merits of this appeal will cancel this registration, a
nd even if the appeal is already qualified when it comes to res judicata of the
action coming, it shall declare the graduation, the election and the record, pre
venting the onset or the continued exercise of the mandate (LC No. 64/90, art. 1
5). "Joel Jose Candido. Brazilian Electoral Law, op. cit. pp. 135. The goal of t
he AIRC is to deny the registration, unregister or render void the graduation. T
he suit challenging the Registration Application is foreseen in art. 97 of the E
lectoral Code and art. 3 of the Supplementary Law No. 64/90. This contest will g
ive the assumptions on which the candidate is subsumed in ineligibility. With po
litical rights are suspended, if you have not desincompatibilizado on schedule.
Anyway, miss the "candidate for candidate" a condition of eligibility or is inse
rted into a disability whose electoral arrangements are: the loss, suspension an
d ineligibility. Therefore, the guardianship action normalcy and legitimacy of t
he elections. 3) Legal nature of the AIRC: Pedro Henrique Tavora Niess teaches t
hat "the challenge to the record of application for elective office constitute t
he exercise of a right of action, inaugurating a process of knowledge in all pha
ses that are peculiar. (...) It is therefore a civil action for knowledge, conte
nt declaratory. "Pedro Henrique Tavora Niess. Political Rights, 2nd ed., Bauru,
SP, Edipro, 2000, pp. 194. The legal nature of the AIRC has two understandings.
For some, the legal nature of the AIRC is an action of lading or constitutive de
sconstitutiva negative. And for others is nothing but a mere administrative proc
edure. The AIRC does not produce the effects of default because the disqualifica
tion is mandatory, so there is no presumption of veracity on the subject transla
ted in this action. This action may be appealed or called nameless ordinary with
in 3 (three) days. 4) Reason for Request: When the pre-candidate is ineligible,
lacking in a condition of eligibility or occur because of ineligibility. The irr
egularity of the convention to choose candidates.
4 5) Legitimacy Active: They are legitimate to propose the action: the political
party, the coalition, the candidate and the prosecution. If a party coalition,
the coalition could only be an active part in the process of appeal is not allow
ed the party alone. For the candidate is an active area in that action, it is no
t necessary that your application has been accepted only by having been chosen b
y the convention and have their application for registration filed, because this
is also the period of processing your registration. Even the "candidate" appeal
may challenge another candidate until it is upheld his appeal. The voter may no
t be an active part in this action may only represent before the Election Judge.
The teacher Djalma Pinto differs from that position trying to expand the roster
 of legitimate citizen including not see it: It was happy for the legislature to
legitimize only the candidate, the coalition and the prosecution. Every citizen
should be legitimized to promote it, after all, is it that makes up the people
who hold power in democracy. Djalma Pinto. Election Law: administrative miscondu
ct and fiscal responsibility - general notions. 3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2006,
pp. 169.
6) Legitimacy Passive: It is the "candidate" (prospective candidate) is not regi
stered. 7) The procedure of candidate for a political candidate: The candidate f
irst must be chosen in a caucus.€The agreement may be either national, regional
or municipal level. It should go inside the convention of the electoral calendar
documents relevant to the examination of Elections in their spheres of competen
ce (examination registration). Therefore, the Regional Electoral Tribunal judges
the records pertaining to the Governor, Senator, Federal Representatives, State
Representatives and District Representatives. Election Judge deems the records
to the mayor, vice mayor and councilman. And the Supreme Electoral Tribunal judg
es the records referring to the president and vice president. Documentation must
be delivered in these different spheres of competence. The documentation for a
candidate is a candidate because, as yet, when is chosen at the convention is ca
lled "prospective candidate". The pre-candidate is legally only candidate who ge
ts the record. And to get the record pre-candidate has to join some documents, w
hich are regulated in Article 94, § 1 and sections of the Electoral Code, as wel
l as the resolutions resulting from the legislative powers of the Supreme Electo
ral Tribunal.
5 Article 94. Registration can be promoted by a delegate of the party, authorize
d in an authentic document, including those who answered in the telegram from th
e party leadership and where the signature recognized by notary. § 1 The applica
tion for registration should be instructed: I - with the authentic copy of the m
inutes of the Convention which has made the choice of candidate, which should be
checked with the original at the Court or the election offices; II - with the p
ermission of candidate, in a document with the signature acknowledged by a notar
y, III - with certificate provided by the election offices in the area for inclu
sion in the record that the voter is registering IV - with proof of party affili
ation, except for candidates for president and vice president, senator and deput
y governor and vice governor, mayor and deputy mayor, V - with race-sheet provid
ed by notaries responsible for ascertaining whether the applicant is in the enjo
yment of political rights (Art. 132, III, and 135 of the Constitution);
(Writing by Law No. 4961 of 04.05.1966)
VI - with a statement of assets, showing the origin and changes in property. (El
ection Code).
8) Procedure for the initiation of the AIRC: The Challenge of Application for Re
gistration Application watches the procedure of Complementary Law n º 64/90. The
Electoral Court reviews these documents. Promoters, members of the public prose
cutor in the case of the application send record their opinions on these documen
ts. Thus, in a certain period there is the possibility of registration of candid
ates to the Challenge, disciplined in Article 3 ff. Complementary Law 64/90. Art
icle 3 It is for any candidate, political party, coalition or the prosecutor, wi
thin 5 (five) days from the publication of the application for registration of t
he candidate contest it on petition substantiated. § 1 The challenge by the cand
idate, political party or coalition does not prevent the action of prosecutors i
n the same direction.
6 § 2 may not challenge the record of the applicant public prosecutor, in 4 (fou
r) previous years, has held elective office, integrated directory of party or pa
rtisan political activity exercised. § 3 The objector shall specify, first, the
evidence that you want to prove the correctness of the alleged, listing witnesse
s, if any, a maximum of six (6).
9) Jurisdiction and assignment: TSE: presidential candidacy. TRE: application fo
r Senator, Governor, Congressman, State Representative and Deputy District. Elec
tion Judge: Mayor and Alderman. Legal basis: Article 2 of LC No. 64/90.
Article 2 is for the Electoral Court hear and determine the complaints of inelig
ibility. Sole Paragraph. A claim of ineligibility will be made before: I - The S
uperior Electoral Court in the case of candidate for President or Vice-President
of the Republic II - The Regional Electoral Courts, in the case of candidate fo
r Senator, Governor and Deputy Governor State and Federal District, Federal, Sta
te and Deputy District III - Election judges in the case of candidate for Mayor,
Deputy Mayor and Alderman. (LC No. 64/90) Division of the level of expertise an
d assignment. A pre-candidate is only considered legal when the candidate gets t
he record by the Electoral Court. The record for running for President and Vice
President of the Republic is the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The competence of t
he judiciary to prosecute this Action Request Application is the registry of the
Supreme Electoral Tribunal.€The legitimate to propose the action: the allocatio
n by the Ministry of the Attorney General is Regional Elections. The other legit
imate for this action are the political parties, coalitions and candidates.
7 Therefore, both legitimate for Research on Judicial Elections for the Challeng
e Request for registration are the Regional Electoral Prosecutor, coalitions, po
litical parties and candidates together at the Superior Electoral Court where ap
plication for President and Vice President of the Republic. When faced with appl
ications to the government (Governor, Senator, Federal, District and State Repre
sentative). The legitimate are the same: candidates, political parties and coali
tions. And by the prosecutor's Regional Electoral Prosecutor. The Court is compe
tent to assess the Regional Electoral Court. And when it comes to the mayor, dep
uty mayor and aldermen, in this case is the Judge of the District Election and t
he allocation of the Promoter is to challenge the Electoral Registration Applica
tion and join with the Judicial Investigation Election, as candidates, parties a
nd political coalitions. 10) Jurisdiction in relation to election crimes: Howeve
r, that legitimacy and the competence do not relate to electoral crimes. As for
electoral crimes, for example, an electoral crime committed by the President is
Judged as the Federal Constitution by the Supreme Court. If the election is a cr
ime committed by a governor, the crime is tried in Superior Court. If election i
s a crime committed by a Congressman is judged in the Supreme Court. This in a s
ystematic, teleological interpretation of Article 53, § 4 combined with Article
102, l of the Federal Constitution, verbatim:
Article 53. Deputies and senators are inviolable, civilly and criminally, for an
y of their opinions, words and votes.
(Writing by CA No 35 of 2001)
(...) § 4 Applications for staying is appreciated by the House in its non-extend
able period of forty-five days of its receipt by the Bureau Director. (Writing b
y CA
Constitutional No 35 of 2001)
(...) Article 102. The Supreme Federal Court, mainly, for safeguarding the Const
itution, it shall: I - process and adjudicate, originally:
8 b) in common criminal offenses, the President, the Vice-President-President, m
embers of Congress, its own ministers and the Attorney General's Office, (emphas
is added) (...) If you committed a crime Election by a Member State shall be att
ached to the Regional Electoral Court. In relation to the Mayors, vice mayors an
d councilors, mayors are in the Regional Electoral Court and is before the City
Council Election Judge. In short, can verify that the Shares to contest the Appl
ication for Registration and Electoral Judicial Investigation spheres of compete
nce are different. If the former candidate or the Ministry adverse public wish t
o contest the application for registration certain candidate for President will
be done in the Superior Electoral Court. But if the Presidential election practi
ce a crime that has nothing to do with the suit challenging his trial registry (
the President, not the presidential candidate) is in the Superior Court. It is i
mportant to know the spheres of electoral crimes and civil lawsuits election (ad
ministrative) with its diverse spheres of competence to avoid confusion. At no t
ime did the Superior Electoral Court judge a crime electoral original form becau
se the electoral crimes are considered ordinary crimes under the Federal Constit
ution. The Magna Carta of 1988 only made the distinction between ordinary crime
and criminal responsibility. Crime Election, therefore, is considered a crime an
d not a common crime committed. Mayors practice in relation to electoral crimes,
there is a controversy in the Federal Constitution. Not a candidate for mayor (
the mayor), that way, article 29, X combined with Article 96, lll FC. Article 29
. The city will be governed by organic law, voted in two rounds, with a minimum
interval of ten days, and approved by two thirds of the members of the City Coun
cil, which enacts it met the principles set forth in this Constitution, the cons
titution of the State and the following precepts: (...) X - Mayor's trial before
the Court;
(Renumbered from item VIII, by Constitutional Amendment No. 1, 1992)
9 (...) Article 96. Incumbent: (...) III - Courts of Justice judge the state jud
ges and the Federal District and Territories, as well as members of the public p
rosecutor, in common crimes and responsibility, subject to the jurisdiction of E
lections.€(Emphasis added). (...) The Federal Constitution only distinction made
between ordinary crimes and responsibility. And crime is crime no electoral acc
ountability, then, by this understanding, the residual form, the electoral crime
is considered a common crime. That is why, the proper constitutional hermeneuti
cs exist no original jurisdiction to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal to judge cri
mes election. Thus, there must be an exegesis of the provisions of article 29, X
c / c Article 96, lll of FC to a good understanding of the meaning and scope of
constitutional norms. It applies, therefore, the principle of symmetry, since t
he Mayor should only be tried by the Court when you do a crime that is not speci
al, as if the election. Another important issue is that matter is likely federal
election, whose jurisdiction is exclusive of the Union can not have, therefore,
a deeming State Court of jurisdiction over federal penalty unconstitutional a f
ocus on the trial, which can be argued from an incidental way. Another important
aspect is that there would be a deletion of one level of jurisdiction because t
he mayor to be tried by the Court and be convicted of a crime would fall electio
n only two species features: Special feature for the Superior Court and the othe
r is the extraordinary appeal to the Supreme Court, assuming prequestionamento a
nd restricted the constitutional relevancy. Would, in the case at hand, the elim
ination of a degree of jurisdiction because the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE
itself) would not know that matter and judge appellate level. So, the question i
s, in this case, the application of due process and legal defense for the elimin
ation of a level court would limit the scope of the right of defense is a right
sublime disciplined in Article 5, LLV and VT FC.
Article 5 All are equal before the law, without distinction whatsoever, guarante
eing Brazilians and foreigners residing in the country the inviolable right to l
ife, liberty, equality, safety and property, as follows:
10 LIV - nobody will be deprived of their liberty or property without due proces
s of law; LV - litigants, in judicial or administrative proceedings, and defenda
nts are usually guaranteed the contradictory and full defense, with the means an
d resources inherent to it , (emphasis added). This issue, therefore, shifts the
jurisdiction of the trial of Mayors who commit crimes election for the Regional
Electoral Tribunal. In relation to the councilmen are judged by close to electi
on crimes Election Judges and Prosecutors is up to the outbreak of electoral com
plaint and externalization of beliefs delicti in the case.
11) Resources: There can only be appealed to the TSE in the case of special appe
al in two cases: I expressly contrary to law, judicial bargaining. Ordinary appe
al to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. Presented the counter-arguments or the lap
se thereof, the file will be sent to the TSE next day, even by the bearer, the e
xpenses of transportation, in the latter case, on behalf of the applicant (Compl
ementary Law n º 64/90, art. 8 , § 2, c / c Article 12, § one). Article 8 In app
lications for registration of candidates for municipal elections, the Election J
udge shall submit the verdict in office three (3) days after completion of the c
ase, going to run this time the term of three (3) days for lodging appeal to the
Regional Electoral Court. (...) § 2 presents the counter-arguments, the file wi
ll be immediately sent to the Regional Electoral Tribunal, including by the carr
ier, if necessary, due to paucity of time, the expenses of transportation on beh
alf of the applicant, if able to pay them. (...) Article 12. Having appealed to
the Superior Electoral Court, the date on which the petition is protocolled will
run within 3 (three) days to submit contrarazões notified by telegram to the de
fendant.
Sole Paragraph 11. Presented the counter-arguments, the file will be immediately
sent to the Superior Electoral Court. (LC No. 64/90) An appeal to the TSE will
rise immediately, eliminating the court for admissibility (Complementary Law No.
64/90, Article 12, § one). The Secretariat of the Regional Electoral Court shal
l, immediately, the Registry of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, telex, facsimile
or electronic mail, the referral of the case, indicating the medium, the date a
nd, if any, the number of knowledge. The resources and their counter-arguments m
ay be sent by facsimile, eliminating the transmission of documents, except those
brought against the decision of the Superior Electoral Tribunal to the Supreme
Court.€Received the case file at the Registry of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal,
they will be booked and presented the same day the president, who also at the s
ame time, circulate them to send a reporter and open view of the Electoral prose
cutor for a period of two days (Complementary Law No. 64/90, Article 10, caput).
Article 10. Received the case file at the Registry of the Regional Electoral Tr
ibunal, they will be booked on the same day and presented to the President who,
also at the same time, circulate them to arrange a Rapporteur and open views to
the Regional Prosecutor for a period of 2 (two) days. (LC No. 64 / 90) After the
deadline, with or without opinion, the case will be sent to the rapporteur, wil
l present at the table for trial in three days, regardless of publication of sta
ff (Complementary Law No. 64/90, Article 10 , § one). Article 10. Received the c
ase file at the Registry of the Regional Electoral Tribunal, they will be booked
on the same day and presented to the President who, also at the same time, circ
ulate them to arrange a Rapporteur and open views to the Regional Prosecutor for
a period of 2 (two) days. Sole Paragraph. After the deadline, with or without o
pinion, the case will be sent to the Rapporteur, who will present them for trial
in Table 3 (three) days, irrespective of the publication in question. (LC No. 6
4/90) In the trial session, made the report, the word will be provided to the pa
rties and the public prosecutor for ten minutes (Complementary Law No. 64/90, Ar
ticle 11, caput, RITS, Article 23, caput ). Article 11. At the sitting of the tr
ial, which could take place within 2 (two) meetings followed, made the report, p
rovided the word to the parties and hearing the Regional Prosecutor, will delive
r the Rapporteur and their vote will be taken of the other judges.
12 Article 23. The Court will form their conviction for a free assessment of the
facts of public knowledge, the evidence and presumptions and evidence produced,
paying attention to facts or circumstances, even if not shown or claimed by the
parties, but to preserve the public interest of fairness of elections. (LC No.
64/90). Having seen the request, the trial will be resumed at the next session.
Heralded as a result, the Court will meet for the drafting of the Judgement, whi
ch will be given the right, the facts and circumstances, on the grounds containe
d in the vote cast by the rapporteur or the vote winner (Complementary Law No. 6
4/90, Article 11, § 1) Article 11. At the sitting of the trial, which could take
place within 2 (two) meetings followed, made the report, provided the word to t
he parties and hearing the Regional Prosecutor, will deliver the Rapporteur and
their vote will be taken of the other judges. § 1 Heralded as the result, the Co
urt will meet for transcription of the Judgement, which will be given the right,
the facts and circumstances on the grounds of the Rapporteur or the vote winner
. (LC No. 64/90). When the session was far will be reading and publishing decisi
on, going to run that date the period of three days for lodging an extraordinary
appeal to the Supreme Federal Court (Federal Constitution, article 121, § 3; Co
mplementary Law No. 64/90, Article 11, § 2). Article 121. Supplemental law provi
des for the organization and jurisdiction of courts, judges and the electoral la
w. (...) § 3 - are unappealable decisions of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, exc
ept those which contravene this Constitution and those denying habeas corpus or
writ of mandamus. CF. (...) Article 11. At the sitting of the trial, which could
take place within 2 (two) meetings followed, made the report, provided the word
to the parties and hearing the Regional Prosecutor, will deliver the Rapporteur
and their vote will be taken of the other judges. (...) § 2 When the session wa
s far will be reading and publishing decision, going to run that date the period
of three (3) days for lodging an appeal to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, in b
ased application. (LC No. 64/90).
13 All resources on application for registration of candidates shall be judged a
nd published their decisions until the day twenty (20) September election year (
Complementary Law No. 64/90, arts. 3 et seq.)
12) Resolution 22.156/06 the Superior Electoral Court: Article 44. All applicati
ons for registration, including the contested, should be judged and published th
eir decisions until the August 23 election year (Complementary Law No. 64/90, Ar
ticle 3 et seq.) Sole Paragraph. After deciding on applications for registration
, the Electoral Justice in the Official Gazette will publish the list of names o
f candidates and their numbers with which they compete in elections, including t
hose whose applications are rejected on appeal. The objector, therefore, must sp
ecify their evidence and to list up to six witnesses.€The deadline for contest i
s seven days from the notification of the candidate, party or coalition. Overcom
e the preliminary investigation phase, will open the common term of five days fo
r the parties to submit their final arguments and the prosecution present its op
inion. Then follow the case to the judge or the court decide in three days.
The deadline for application is three days. The counter-arguments must also be f
iled in three days, from the protocol of the appeal. The appeal against the judg
e's decision is the unnamed election under Article 265 of the Electoral Code, ev
en including the retraction (Article 267, § 7). Against the decision of the Regi
onal Electoral Court, the action is called ordinary, in accordance with sections
III and IV of § 4 of Article 121 of the Federal Constitution c / c 276 items, i
tems I and II, and 277 of the Electoral Code. It may be appropriate injunction a
gainst original decision of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The run time in offi
ce (regardless of subpoena) are mandatory, continuous and not be suspended on Sa
turdays, Sundays and holidays, in accordance with Article 16 of Complementary La
w 64/90. Under Summary No. 10 of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, if the verdict
is delivered in office before the three days available for the judge to decide a
nd there is subpoena staff concerned, the deadline for the appeal (three days) a
gainst the decision begins to run the final term that triduum. The declaration o
f ineligibility of the candidate to head the executive branch does not affect th
e candidate for vice, and the declaration of ineligibility does not affect the d
eputy leadership candidate for the Executive, under Article 18 of the Law of Ine
ligibility (Complementary Law No. 64/90 ). According to No Precedent 11 of the S
upreme Electoral Tribunal, "in the registration process
14 candidate, the party did not contest that has no standing to appeal the rulin
g that upheld unless taking care of constitutional matters. " Political party ma
y be interested to appeal the sentence can not do it if it is not the holder of
a challenge.
13) The flowchart of the suit challenging the registration Jobs follows the foll
owing order: Request for Dispute; Notification Notification of appeal or prosecu
tion (if not already an active part) Presentation of Challenge (deadline July 7
days. Proofs and witnesses) in advance of trial proceedings or curative act; Ins
truction (4 days); Measures. Hearsay and third-party witnesses; Final Appeal of
the parties (within 5 days) Completion of proceedings (1 day) sentence (3 days);
Appeal, with reasons (deadline 3 days); Against reasons (deadline 3 days) ; TRE
Action (deadline 3 days).
13.1) Time: (mandatory and continuous): Filing: 5 days of the publication of rec
ord. Challenge: 7 days from the deadline to appeal after due notice. Examination
of witnesses: 4 days after the deadline for response. Steps (including third-pa
rty hearsay): 5 days following the hearing of witnesses. Final Appeal (ending th
e delay evidential): 5 days. Autos concluded and the rapporteur for trial: day a
fter the deadline for claims. Trial: 3 days after the conclusion of the case. Ap
peal: 3 days after publication in session, the Judgement. Counter-arguments: 3 d
ays (notification via fax, telegram or e-mail).
13.2) Proof: The objector must show the evidence to that effect, specifying the
list of witnesses, if any. The appeal in defense, may attach documentary evidenc
e, call witnesses or require the production of other evidence, including documen
ts that are held by third parties, in public or in judicial or administrative pr
oceedings, except those conducted in secrecy and justice. Witnesses should
15 appear on the initiative of the parties to attend court and be heard in one s
itting. The rapporteur may hear third parties referred to by the parties, as con
noisseurs of facts that could influence the trial of the case. The rapporteur ma
y require the filing of documents necessary for the formation of evidence that i
s held by a third party, under penalty of imprisonment for the crime of disobedi
ence. 13.3) Trial: The registration of ineligible candidate or not meeting the e
ligibility requirements will be rejected, even though there has not been challen
ged. The application for registration, with or without objection, will be judged
in three (3) days after completion of the file, regardless of publication of st
aff. After reading the report in session opens the floor to the parties and the
public prosecutor for 10 (ten) minutes. If application for order, the trial will
be resumed at the next session. Heralded as a result, the Court shall transcrip
tion of the Judgement,€that will be read and published at the end of the session
.
Link Blog: <
www.adrianocelestinoribeirobarros.blogspot.com>
Email: acrbadv@bol.com.br
BIBLIOGRAPHY: COSTA, Adriano Soares da. Electoral Law Institutions, Belo Horizon
te: Del Rey, 2000. Niess. Pedro Henrique Tavora. Political Rights, 2nd ed., Baur
u, SP, Edipro, 2000. PINTO, Djalma. Election Law: administrative misconduct and
fiscal responsibility - general notions. 3rd ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2006. Candide
, Joel Joseph Brazilian Electoral Law. 11th ed., 3rd edition, revised and update
d. Bauru, São Paulo: Edipro, 2005. Ramayana, Mark. Electoral law. 4th edition. R
io de Janeiro: Impetus, 2005. Resolution 22.156/06 the Superior Electoral Tribun
al.