Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
0 comments 
Unanimous Decision of the Supreme Court Defines That Ordinary Norms Are Valid to Extinguish Benefits When the Matter Does Not Require Complementary Law Under the Constitution.
The Supreme Federal Court (STF) defined, in a judgment with general repercussions, that an ordinary law can revoke a benefit granted to public servants when established by municipal complementary law on a typical ordinary norm subject. The decision was unanimous and followed the rapporteur’s vote, Minister Edson Fachin, consolidating a thesis that will have a direct impact on numerous processes in the country.
The understanding was established in ARE 1.521.802, corresponding to Theme 1.352, and should serve as guidance for the courts in similar cases.
Fachin emphasized that the Constitution does not require a complementary law for matters of ordinary nature and that, therefore, there is no hierarchy between the two types of law, only a difference in quorum, according to information from the portal Migalhas.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
The Case That Originated the Discussion
The process began in Formiga (MG), where a municipal employee received transportation assistance created by complementary law. Subsequently, an ordinary law revoked the benefit, but the Court of Justice of Minas Gerais understood that only another complementary law could extinguish the advantage.
The municipality appealed to the STF arguing that the Constitution does not impose this requirement and that the municipal law merely had the form of complementary law but the content of ordinary law.
The detailed coverage was published by the portal Migalhas.
Rationale of the Rapporteur and the Position of the STF
In his vote, Fachin emphasized that complementary law does not have a superior hierarchy to ordinary law.
The difference lies only in the more rigid approval quorum required by the Constitution in specific matters. Other than that, both have the same normative weight.
The minister also highlighted that the enactment of a complementary law to regulate benefits for servants encroaches on the area reserved for ordinary law.
Thus, respecting the principle of symmetry, Article 126 of the Statute of the Education Professionals of Formiga, instituted by LC 4.494/11, could be modified or revoked by municipal ordinary law.
The Thesis Established by the Supreme Court
With the decision, the following thesis was consolidated:
“It is possible to revoke or alter by ordinary law the benefit granted to a public servant by complementary law when materially ordinary, observing the principle of symmetry.”
The judgment took place in a virtual session that ended on September 12 and was unanimous among the ministers.
From now on, similar processes across the country must follow this guideline.
Impacts of the Decision
The STF’s decision provides legal certainty by clearly defining the limits of each type of law. Municipalities and city councils, for example, now have support to adjust regulations on benefits for servants without necessarily depending on complementary law, as long as the matter is of ordinary nature.
In practice, this may reduce legal disputes and standardize the application of law, avoiding divergent interpretations between state courts.
On the other hand, unions and associations of servants should closely monitor the application of the thesis, as it may directly impact benefits already granted in different municipalities.
The unanimous decision of the STF establishes a milestone regarding the strength of ordinary law in relation to benefits for public servants created by municipal complementary laws.
The understanding reflects a balance between local legislative autonomy and constitutional limits, ensuring clarity and predictability in dealing with these cases.
And you, do you believe that this change strengthens legal certainty or could undermine rights already secured by servants? Leave your opinion in the comments; we want to hear from those who live this reality in practice.
-
Uma pessoa reagiu a isso.