The injunction halts the ruling in favor of Atlético over payments from the Arena da Baixada

THE First Court of the State Treasury of Curitiba stopped this Thursday (22), in a court docket order, the determination of Audit Office of the State of Paraná (TCE-PR) which requires the state and municipality to submit a brand new supplemental settlement to Arena da Baixadain addition to sharing the ultimate worth of the work (R$346.2 million) with athletic.

The court docket’s determination got here after a preferred lawsuit filed by the businessman Fabio Aguayo in opposition to TCE-PR counsel Fernando Augusto Mello Guimarães. The lawsuit discusses the legality and competence of the Court of Audit’s determination on the membership’s attraction.

Last week, the metropolis requested an extension of the 30-day interval to adjust to the TCE-PR determination, a request that was additionally granted this Thursday. The case is ultimate on August 23.

the reserve decide Rafaela Marie Tura accepted the argument that Atlético had no standing to file such a grievance and cited that the settlement signed throughout the renovation of the stadium for World Cup 2014 expressed a cost-sharing threshold.

“Therefore, the floor that the attraction was allowed – it should be repeated, filed by an illegitimate individual – seems fairly skewed to keep away from additional harm to the exchequer arising from future and eventual utility of late cost expenses for delay/non-performance of the public topic [“indícios de materialidade de ilícito potencialmente danoso aos cofres públicos”], when in reality it seems that the public entity has by no means agreed to this sort of obligation and, furthermore, it doesn’t even seem that it might, it dangers then being audited by the Court of Auditors, which lends itself to it. Now the Court of Auditors should first of all guarantee the right use of public expenditure, confirm public accounts, and never the different means round, i.e. impose new expenditure on the treasury based mostly on assumptions and clearly distorted interpretations of the dedication signed by way of an Agreement,” reads half of the answer.

trigger of motion

Asked for the report, Aguayo, who represents a number of class models, responded that the motion will not be institutional as a result of it should be signed as a citizen and a person.

The entrepreneur is the president of Abrasion (Brazilian Association of Bars and Night Clubs) and Vice President of Sindiprom (Union of Promotion Companies) and Featurism (Federation of Accommodation, Gastronomy, Entertainment and Similar Companies).

According to the plaintiff, who was additionally TCE-PR Presidency Advisor between February and June 2021at your request, an examination of the case was carried out by an exterior legislation agency.

“The fundamental conclusion was that TCE-PR allegedly usurped the competence of TJ-PR and handled the grievance filed by CAP as a real personal request, imposing on the City Hall and the State a millionaire expense which, in response to what was verified, was fully opposite to something supplied for in the tripartite settlement. With this, we determined to file a preferred motion to protect the treasury,” says Aguayo, who highlighted his involvement in a number of actions in opposition to City Hall for losses throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

Read the full assertion at the finish of the article.

TCE-PR Director place

Board member Fernando Guimarães, on the different hand, informed the OneTwo Sports who did what he thought was proper for the event.

“There is an settlement, the tripartite obligation should be fulfilled. The quantity is in response to the FGV report, which was authorized in court docket. And the state and the municipality haven’t appealed. This is the vote, there may be the obligation. What is claimed is that since the contract was already expired, there could possibly be no continuation or new modification. But in reality, it is a deadline for the implementation of the settlement… I voted, the plenary corridor accepted and the determination was made. This is the authorized act, not my vote,” he stated.

On Aguayo’s motivation and his latest go to to the Auditor General, Guimaraes was temporary. “I do not know something. I do not know why, however as a citizen you will have the proper to do it. The causes behind it I do not know.”

A much bigger drawback?

Even if the preliminary injunction is later lifted, the course of will proceed and will even attain Brazil, in Supreme Court (STJ)which will surely be politically dangerous for Atlético’s plans to close down the ‘new tripartite’ and finish the Arena drawback as soon as and for all.

The membership, for instance, is near closing the cost of approx 40 million BRL to the City Hall for the expropriations for the renovation of the stadium and the development of the press heart for the World Cup. The matter has been settled and the membership has misplaced the first two situations.

At the similar time, he’s coping with the state authorities on the guidelines for a contemporary modification in line with the TCE-PR determination, in addition to holding superior talks with Development of Parana, which made the loans for the work, to find out the kind and time period of cost – the executions have already been suspended by foreclosures in the STJ. All this, of course, with the division into three elements of R$ 346.2 million.

According to Atlético’s lawyer, Luis Fernando Pereira, the drawback is not going to be an impediment in the seek for an answer to the Arena da Baixada case. He provides for example the destiny of different related processes.

“This is the fourth standard motion on the topic. The first three had been judged to be groundless, with a verdict already in impact. Such can be the destiny of the final one, I’m positive.”

Note from Fabio Aguayo

It has all the time been our perspective as a citizen or a consultant of the enterprise class to watch the situation and measures that hurt our actions, the organized civil society and particularly the tax payer and the inhabitants in normal.

In the case of the Cup, now we have been cautious since 2014 with numerous preventive actions and measures, from easy expenses throughout extra various transport and the growth of the taxi fleet, in addition to debates about the environment of the Arena Stadium at a time when FIFA wished to control and ban commercialization and areas of displacement and proliferation exclusion that may hurt our actions.

So we aren’t shifting at the moment and, of course, we’re following the improvement of the TCE-PR determination on the work of the Arena. I then realized that one thing is likely to be improper as I’m acquainted with the subject of exterior management and requested Dr. Jorge Casagrande, who was the CPI authorized marketing consultant to Obras da Copa, to research.

Casagrande’s workplace carried out an intensive research of all the documentation, a number of gigabytes of paperwork, and got here to quite a few conclusions.

The fundamental one is that TCE-PR allegedly usurped the competence of TJ-PR and handled the grievance filed by CAP as an actual personal request, imposing on the Municipality and the State a millionaire expense, which, in response to the verified information, is in full contradiction to all the provisions of the tripartite settlement. With this, we determined to begin a preferred motion to protect the treasury”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.