Tax emblematic issue relating to financing of public
Health by the Union returns to the STF's agenda, involving the Principle of Prohibition of Social Retrocess, which is disseminated in our Constitution, but which, in a simplified way, can be anchored in article 1, III, which deals with the dignity of the human person. This is ADI 5,595, proposed long before the pandemic, but with undeniable repercussions today and in the future, which will return for voting in the STF's Virtual Plenary between September 2nd and. SpaccaThe current "score" is: ministers Ricardo Lewandowski (rapporteur, who granted the requested injunction), Edson Fachin and Marco Aurélio, judged the initial request to declare the unconstitutionality of articles 2 andto be valid.Minister Cármen Lúcia accompanied the rapporteur with reservations. Ministers Gilmar Mendes and Luiz Fux voted to dismiss it, considering the request in relation to article 2 to be prejudiced. Minister Alexandre de Moraes voted to dismiss the action. Ministers Dias Toffoli, Roberto Barroso, Rosa Weber and Nunes Marques remain EX Mobile Phone Numbers to vote. ADI 5,595 was proposed in September 2016 by the Attorney General of the Republic, with the aim of declaring the unconstitutionality of two articles of. Article 2 established that the amount to be spent by the Union on healthcare would be "progressively met", guaranteeing a floor of at leas.
https://www.brazdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/seo-758264_1280-300x150.jpg
of net current revenue in 2017. The argument for unconstitutionality is principled and substantial: the minimum amount that the Union should finance for health expenses was established by Complementary Law article 5), therefore, by the Principle of Prohibition of Social Retrocess, the progressiveness established by article 2 would bring less money to public health. It turns out that article 2 was revoked by EC 95/16, which established the spending ceiling . Therefore, apparently , the ADI would have lost the object with reference to article.
頁:
[1]