Prescription in the PASEP Case: Legal Basis and Analysis of the Decision скачать в хорошем качестве

Prescription in the PASEP Case: Legal Basis and Analysis of the Decision

🔢PASEP CALCULIST EXPERT https://contate.me/valterdossantos ✅THOSE WHO WORKED BEFORE 1988 CAN RECEIVE COMPENSATION, DECIDES STJ. ACCESS HERE: https://go.hotmart.com/A77119532I # Prescription in the PASEP Case: Legal Basis and Analysis of the Decision Introduction The purpose of this article is to analyze the legal basis used in the decision that dismissed the prescription in the case involving the PASEP account. The case deals with the claim for compensation for damages caused by embezzlement in the account linked to PASEP, analyzing the applicable prescriptive term and the moment of its initial term. Legal Basis 1. *Applicable prescriptive period:* The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) defined, in Theme 1,150, that the claim for reimbursement of amounts unduly withdrawn from the PASEP account is subject to the ten-year prescriptive period, as provided for in article 205 of the Civil Code. 2. *Initial term of the prescriptive period:* The prescriptive period begins when the account holder has unequivocal knowledge of the embezzlement, applying the "actio nata" theory. In the case in question, the plaintiff only became aware of the undue withdrawals when she obtained the detailed statement of her account on 02/26/2024. 3. *Error in the first instance judgment:* The first instance judge considered that the prescriptive period should be counted from the date of the withdrawal made on 08/21/2003. However, settled case law at the STJ rejects this interpretation, determining that the term only begins when the injured party has effective knowledge of the injury. 4. *Applicability of article 487, II, of the CPC:* The first instance judgment extinguished the case with a resolution on the merits due to recognition of the statute of limitations. However, the second instance decision annulled this judgment, ordering the continuation of the case. 5. *Passive legitimacy of Banco do Brasil:* The STJ recognizes the passive legitimacy of Banco do Brasil to respond for possible embezzlement and failures in the management of accounts linked to PASEP. 6. *Applicable precedents:* The judgment refers to previous decisions by the TJGO and the STJ that consolidate the thesis that the statute of limitations is ten years and the starting date is the unequivocal knowledge of the damage. 7. *Relevant case law:* The decision mentions REsp 1.895.936/TO (Topic 1,150) as a leading case on the subject, reinforcing legal certainty and standardizing the interpretation of the prescriptive term. 8. *Correction of the omission in updating the amounts:* In addition to the undue withdrawals, the action also deals with the lack of adequate correction of the amounts deposited in the PASEP account. 9. *Continuation of the action:* With the reform of the sentence, the process must continue to analyze the merits of the claim for reimbursement of the amounts due. 10. *Impact of the decision:* The exclusion of the prescriptive term allows the case to be judged based on the merits of the claim, setting precedents for similar cases. Conclusion The decision analyzed reinforces the need for an adequate interpretation of the prescriptive term in cases involving PASEP. The thesis established by the STJ, adopted by the Court of Justice of the State of Goiás, ensures that account holders linked to the program are not harmed by undue withdrawals made without their knowledge. Thus, the removal of the statute of limitations guarantees the right to compensation for damages suffered.