Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 23:29:42 GMT -7
The Private Law Section of the Court of Justice of São Paulo has jurisdiction to judge actions that deal with the provision of services, governed by Private Law, including those involving obligations arising from contracts for the provision of school services and the supply of water, gas , electricity and telephony.
reproduction
Reproduction Action regarding the removal of a light pole is the responsibility of the Private Law Section
This was the understanding adopted by the Special Body of the Court of Justice of São Paulo to judge a conflict of jurisdiction and send the records of an obligation to do action to the 33rd Chamber of Private Law. In the process, a citizen requests the free removal of an electricity pole installed in front of her house.
Originally, the files were distributed B2B Lead to the 33rd Chamber of Private Law, which declined its jurisdiction, based on article 3, of Resolution 623/2013, due to the fact that a public service concessionaire was the defendant, determining the redistribution of the files. to the Public Law Section.
The 10th Chamber of Public Law, which received the case, raised the conflict of jurisdiction, claiming that, in the case of service provision governed by Private Law, even if it involves the supply of electricity, the jurisdiction for processing and judgment lies with the Section of Private Law.
According to the rapporteur of the conflict of jurisdiction, judge Ademir Benedito, in the case at hand, it is irrelevant for the determination of jurisdiction in the second instance that the concessionaire of the public electricity supply service is a party.
“Resolution 623/13 of the Court of Justice established the preferential jurisdiction of the 11th to 38th Chambers of the Private Law Section to examine demands that involve the provision of services governed by private law, including those that deal with obligations arising from a contract of supply of electrical energy (article 5, § 1)”, he stated.
Benedito stated that the removal of poles, whether free or costly, “evidently” is an obligation that arises from the electricity service provision contract. The author's claim, stated the judge, does not cover the public electricity service as a whole or the non-contractual civil liability of the concessionaire. Hence the competence of the Private Law Section to judge the demand.
“On the other hand, it is important to highlight the absence of any hypothesis of competence of the Public Law Section, especially items I.2, I.3 and I.7 of article 3 of Resolution 623/13. This is because the demand does not address public service issues in general. The applicant does not intend to control or comply with an administrative act, nor does it question any aspect regarding the concession of the electricity service”, he added.