Controle judicial das decisões dos Tribunais de Contas como hipótese de inelegibilidade

Abstract

This work aims to study the limits of control by Electoral Justice about the decisions of the Courts of Accounts in the judgment of public accounts in order to declare the ineligibility of candidates for elective office. The Complementary Law n. 135/2010 (“Clean Record Law”) gave new text to the hypothesis of ineligibility established under art. 1, I “g”, of Complementary Law n. 64/90, so it‟s necessary to delineate clear parameters to guide the electoral jurisdiction without violating the constitutionally guaranteed powers to the Courts of Accounts. The first chapter examines the role of the Courts of Accounts in the institutional arrangement delimited by the 1988 Brazilian Constitution and the legal nature of its decisions about the supervision of public spending by managers in exercising public functions, especially regarding his relationship with the judicial function. In the next chapter, it is problematized the ineligibility described in art. 1º, I “g”, of LC n. 64/90, with the new text given by LC nº. 135/2010, as a restriction of the fundamental political right to dispute an election, covering the essential requirements for its characterization: reject accounts, unappealable decision, detection of incurable irregularity that characterizes intentional act of administrative improbity and absence of suspensive court decision. Finally, in the third chapter, it is sought to establish the limits of judicial review of the Electoral Justice about the decisions handed by the Courts of Accounts in order to enact the ineligibility of candidates for elective office, for the purpose of to seek a correct application of art. 1º, I, “g”, of LC nº. 64/90 in the current democratic context, from the study of topics such as administrative and judicial discretion, indeterminate juridical concepts, philosophical thought of Spinoza and its impact on the democratic system as a background to the problem of the limits of this kind of judicial review.