Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 4:04:59 GMT -5
Whether or not there is a petition from the Public Treasury and whether or not there is a judicial pronouncement to that effect after the one year period of suspension ends the applicable statute of limitations automatically begins according to the nature of the credit being enforced during the which process should be archived without reduction in distribution in accordance with art. nd rd and th of Law no. . – LEF at the end of which the Judge after hearing the Public Treasury may ex officio recognize the intercurrent prescription and decree it immediately;
The effective asset constriction and the effective summons even if by notice are capable of interrupting the course of the intercurrent prescription and for this purpose the mere petition in court is not enough requesting for example the execution of the seizure on financial assets or on other goods. Requests made by the CG Leads creditor within the sum of the maximum period of one year of suspension plus the applicable limitation period according to the nature of the credit being enforced must be processed even beyond the sum of these two periods because once the debtors are cited even by notice and the assets are seized at any time - even after the aforementioned deadlines have passed - the intercurrent prescription is considered interrupted retroactively on the date of the filing of the petition that requested the fruitful measure. .
The Public Treasury in its first opportunity to speak in the case art. of CPC corresponding to art. of within the procedure of art. of the LEF must demonstrate the loss suffered except the lack of notice that constitutes the initial term – .. where the loss is presumed for example it must demonstrate the occurrence of any interruptive or suspensive cause of prescription.
The judge when recognizing the intercurrent prescription must justify the judicial act by delimiting the legal frameworks that were applied in counting the respective period including the period in which the execution was suspended. … REsp RS Rel. Minister MAURO CAMPBELL MARQUES FIRST SECTION judged on DJe ”.
The aforementioned trial concluded in established several theses addressing the general rules for counting the intercurrent prescription period in tax proceedings.
Regarding the matter Topics and established the following conclusions: the Public Treasury in its first opportunity to speak in the case must prove the occurrence of any interruptive or suspensive cause of the prescription.
The effective asset constriction and the effective summons even if by notice are capable of interrupting the course of the intercurrent prescription and for this purpose the mere petition in court is not enough requesting for example the execution of the seizure on financial assets or on other goods. Requests made by the CG Leads creditor within the sum of the maximum period of one year of suspension plus the applicable limitation period according to the nature of the credit being enforced must be processed even beyond the sum of these two periods because once the debtors are cited even by notice and the assets are seized at any time - even after the aforementioned deadlines have passed - the intercurrent prescription is considered interrupted retroactively on the date of the filing of the petition that requested the fruitful measure. .
The Public Treasury in its first opportunity to speak in the case art. of CPC corresponding to art. of within the procedure of art. of the LEF must demonstrate the loss suffered except the lack of notice that constitutes the initial term – .. where the loss is presumed for example it must demonstrate the occurrence of any interruptive or suspensive cause of prescription.
The judge when recognizing the intercurrent prescription must justify the judicial act by delimiting the legal frameworks that were applied in counting the respective period including the period in which the execution was suspended. … REsp RS Rel. Minister MAURO CAMPBELL MARQUES FIRST SECTION judged on DJe ”.
The aforementioned trial concluded in established several theses addressing the general rules for counting the intercurrent prescription period in tax proceedings.
Regarding the matter Topics and established the following conclusions: the Public Treasury in its first opportunity to speak in the case must prove the occurrence of any interruptive or suspensive cause of the prescription.