NaLei!

The CNJ (National Council of Justice) denied on Tuesday (12 / 5) the request to annul a determination of the judge responsible for the county of Vilhena, 705 km from the capital of Rondonia, which prevented the entry of persons using costumes " hurt the decency of Justice "as shorts, shorts, miniskirts or low-cut blouses.

Most directors of the body responsible for formulating the guidelines of the Judiciary met the request by a lawyer in Rondonia, but felt rejected. They understood that the ban is an implicit moral standard and natural, as applicable to the whole society.

The present case was filed by attorney Andrew Smaniotto Alex, who resorted to claiming that the device CNJ, posted on the door of the Forum of Vilhena, was discriminatory. He said a person "extremely poor" has been prevented from entering the forum because he wore shorts below the knees and worn T-shirt.

The analysis was adopted with the vote seen Advisor Técio Lins e Silva, who took into account that any rule, ordinance, resolution or law was given for the ban. "Matters related to the customs do not have the sense to be discussed here. There is no standard to be subjected to administrative control, "he said. "We do not dictate fashion and we are not the 'National Agency for Regulation of Clothing'," joked Técio Lins e Silva.

He said the testimony of the case show that there was never ban the entry of any person to be humble, be certain appearance or be wearing precarious. "There's no link costumes for regular admission in court," he said in his vote.

Councilman voted by not knowing the application. "There is nothing to regulate. The request is delusion of someone who sent information that does not exist. The lawyer does not give the slightest evidence that anyone was actually prevented from joining the forum, "he said.

During the session, the counselor Marcelo Nobre, who also voted by not knowing, said that was the signal to society that everyone should access the courts properly dressed.

Debates

The case began to be discussed on April 28. The rapporteur of the case, Minister João Oreste Dalazen, voted to reject the application, noting, however, that their vote did not mean "restriction of access to justice."

Councilman Paul Lobo was the only one to agree with the lawyer of Rondonia. According to him, the magistrate is not the legislature. "The Constitution provides that nobody shall be obliged to do or not do something, but under the law," said Lobo.

For him, it is unreasonable that the citizen is required to change clothes, they normally use to navigate the public and private spaces, to go to the forum of your city becomes aware of the processes of interest. "Such prohibitions, far from enhancing the Judiciary, the distance of the citizen, as a place of intermediaries to the common people of the people," said the counselor in your vote.

At its meeting on Tuesday, Councilman Philip Locke noted that the function of CNJ "is not regular if the person can get with this or that outfit." The rapporteur said that this was no trace rules of conduct, but wonder if the act violated the judge of Vilhena access to justice.

The counselor Andrea Pasha stressed that the determination is not a formal administrative rule but merely a determination of conduct, which did not actually reach the community. "It's the same thing as a post card written 'Forbidden to hit the wall,'" he said. The ban, according to advisers, should be applied based on common sense.

SOURCE: Final Appeal

The CNJ (National Council of Justice) denied on Tuesday (12 / 5) the request to annul a determination of the judge responsible for the county of Vilhena, 705 km from the capital of Rondonia, which prevented the entry of persons using costumes " hurt the decency of Justice "as shorts, shorts, miniskirts or low-cut blouses.

Most directors of the body responsible for formulating the guidelines of the Judiciary met the request by a lawyer in Rondonia, but felt rejected. They understood that the ban is an implicit moral standard and natural, as applicable to the whole society.

The present case was filed by attorney Andrew Smaniotto Alex, who resorted to claiming that the device CNJ, posted on the door of the Forum of Vilhena, was discriminatory. He said a person "extremely poor" has been prevented from entering the forum because he wore shorts below the knees and worn T-shirt.

The analysis was adopted with the vote seen Advisor Técio Lins e Silva, who took into account that any rule, ordinance, resolution or law was given for the ban. "Matters related to the customs do not have the sense to be discussed here. There is no standard to be subjected to administrative control, "he said. "We do not dictate fashion and we are not the 'National Agency for Regulation of Clothing'," joked Técio Lins e Silva.

He said the testimony of the case show that there was never ban the entry of any person to be humble, be certain appearance or be wearing precarious. "There's no link costumes for regular admission in court," he said in his vote.

Councilman voted by not knowing the application. "There is nothing to regulate. The request is delusion of someone who sent information that does not exist. The lawyer does not give the slightest evidence that anyone was actually prevented from joining the forum, "he said.

During the session, the counselor Marcelo Nobre, who also voted by not knowing, said that was the signal to society that everyone should access the courts properly dressed.

Debates

The case began to be discussed on April 28. The rapporteur of the case, Minister João Oreste Dalazen, voted to reject the application, noting, however, that their vote did not mean "restriction of access to justice."

Councilman Paul Lobo was the only one to agree with the lawyer of Rondonia. According to him, the magistrate is not the legislature. "The Constitution provides that nobody shall be obliged to do or not do something, but under the law," said Lobo.

For him, it is unreasonable that the citizen is required to change clothes, they normally use to navigate the public and private spaces, to go to the forum of your city becomes aware of the processes of interest. "Such prohibitions, far from enhancing the Judiciary, the distance of the citizen, as a place of intermediaries to the common people of the people," said the counselor in your vote.

At its meeting on Tuesday, Councilman Philip Locke noted that the function of CNJ "is not regular if the person can get with this or that outfit." The rapporteur said that this was no trace rules of conduct, but whether the act violated the judge Vilhena access to justice.

The counselor Andrea Pasha stressed that the determination is not a formal administrative rule but merely a determination of conduct, which did not actually reach the community. "It's the same thing as a post card written 'Forbidden to hit the wall,'" he said. The ban, according to advisers, should be applied based on common sense.

SOURCE: Final Appeal

The CNJ (National Council of Justice) denied on Tuesday (12 / 5) the request to annul a determination of the judge responsible for the county of Vilhena, 705 km from the capital of Rondonia, which prevented the entry of persons using costumes " hurt the decency of Justice "as shorts, shorts, miniskirts or low-cut blouses.

Most directors of the body responsible for formulating the guidelines of the Judiciary met the request by a lawyer in Rondonia, but felt rejected. They understood that the ban is an implicit moral standard and natural, as applicable to the whole society.

The present case was filed by attorney Andrew Smaniotto Alex, who resorted to claiming that the device CNJ, posted on the door of the Forum of Vilhena, was discriminatory. He said a person "extremely poor" has been prevented from entering the forum because he wore shorts below the knees and worn T-shirt.

The analysis was adopted with the vote seen Advisor Técio Lins e Silva, who took into account that any rule, ordinance, resolution or law was given for the ban. "Matters related to the customs do not have the sense to be discussed here. There is no standard to be subjected to administrative control, "he said. "We do not dictate fashion and we are not the 'National Agency for Regulation of Clothing'," joked Técio Lins e Silva.

He said the testimony of the case show that there was never ban the entry of any person to be humble, be certain appearance or be wearing precarious. "There's no link costumes for regular admission in court," he said in his vote.

Councilman voted by not knowing the application. "There is nothing to regulate. The request is delusion of someone who sent information that does not exist. The lawyer does not give the slightest evidence that anyone was actually prevented from joining the forum, "he said.

During the session, the counselor Marcelo Nobre, who also voted by not knowing, said that was the signal to society that everyone should access the courts properly dressed.

Debates

The case began to be discussed on April 28. The rapporteur of the case, Minister João Oreste Dalazen, voted to reject the application, noting, however, that their vote did not mean "restriction of access to justice."

Councilman Paul Lobo was the only one to agree with the lawyer of Rondonia. According to him, the magistrate is not the legislature. "The Constitution provides that nobody shall be obliged to do or not do something, but under the law," said Lobo.

For him, it is unreasonable that the citizen is required to change clothes, they normally use to navigate the public and private spaces, to go to the forum of your city becomes aware of the processes of interest. "Such prohibitions, far from enhancing the Judiciary, the distance of the citizen, as a place of intermediaries to the common people of the people," said the counselor in your vote.

At its meeting on Tuesday, Councilman Philip Locke noted that the function of CNJ "is not regular if the person can get with this or that outfit." The rapporteur said that this was no trace rules of conduct, but whether the act violated the judge Vilhena access to justice.

The counselor Andrea Pasha pointed out that the determination is not a formal administrative rule but merely a determination of conduct, which did not actually reach the community. "It's the same thing as a post card written 'Forbidden to hit the wall,'" he said. The ban, according to advisers, should be applied based on common sense.

SOURCE: Final Appeal