Loading...
Publication
A função sancionatória dos Tribunais de Contas: uma análise à luz do Direito Penal Administrativo e do devido processo legal
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dissertação de mestrado_37780 | 920.15 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A presente dissertação tem como objetivo analisar a atuação sancionatória dos Tribunais de Contas sob a perspectiva do Direito Penal Administrativo, compreendendo os fundamentos jurídicos, os limites constitucionais e os parâmetros teóricos que devem orientar a imposição de sanções por esses órgãos. Os Tribunais de Contas, embora não integrem o Poder Judiciário, exercem função relevante no controle externo da Administração Pública, sendo competentes para aplicar sanções que apresentam conteúdo materialmente penal, como multas, imputações de débito, declarações de inidoneidade e inabilitações para funções públicas.
Ao longo do trabalho destaca-se a existência de três dimensões no processo de contas — política, indenizatória e sancionatória — com ênfase na última, que justifica a adoção de princípios estruturantes do Direito Penal, como legalidade, tipicidade, culpabilidade, proporcionalidade, retroatividade da norma mais favorável, ne bis in idem e non reformatio in pejus. Argumenta-se que essas garantias devem ser observadas nos processos de responsabilização conduzidos pelas Cortes de Contas, sobretudo diante da gravidade das sanções impostas e de seus impactos na esfera jurídica dos administrados.
A dissertação discute também o conceito e a evolução do Direito Penal Administrativo como um ramo híbrido, destinado a regular sanções administrativas que se aproximam, em natureza e efeitos, das penas criminais. Analisa-se, ainda, como as teorias legitimadoras da pena — notadamente as teorias de prevenção geral e especial — podem ser aplicadas à interpretação das sanções administrativas, conferindo racionalidade à sua função repressiva e pedagógica.
Por meio da análise normativa e jurisprudencial, verifica-se que ainda há práticas sancionatórias que destoam dos princípios garantistas, como a responsabilização objetiva, a aplicação de penalidades automáticas por falhas formais e a ausência de critérios padronizados de dosimetria. Ao final, são apresentadas propostas de aprimoramento da atuação dos Tribunais de Contas, abrangendo a regulamentação da gravidade das infrações, a exigência de dolo ou erro grosseiro, o fortalecimento do papel orientador das Cortes, a sistematização da jurisprudência e o uso de tecnologia para aperfeiçoar a fiscalização e mitigar o formalismo excessivo.
Conclui-se que o respeito aos princípios do Direito Penal Administrativo é essencial para garantir a legitimidade do poder sancionador dos Tribunais de Contas, promovendo um equilíbrio entre o combate à má gestão e a proteção dos direitos fundamentais dos agentes públicos. A pesquisa contribui para o debate doutrinário e institucional sobre os limites e possibilidades do controle externo no Estado de Direito e abre caminho para estudos empíricos e comparativos que aprofundem a compreensão do modelo sancionatório vigente.
This dissertation aims to analyze the sanctioning role of the Courts of Accounts from the perspective of Administrative Criminal Law, addressing the legal foundations, constitutional limits, and theoretical parameters that should guide the imposition of sanctions by these institutions. Although they are not part of the Judiciary, the Courts of Accounts play a relevant role in the external control of Public Administration and have the authority to impose sanctions with a materially punitive nature, such as fines, orders of reimbursement, declarations of ineligibility, and disqualifications from holding public office. Throughout the study, it is emphasized that the audit process encompasses three main dimensions — political, compensatory, and sanctioning — with focus on the latter, which justifies the application of core criminal law principles such as legality, typicity, culpability, proportionality, retroactivity of the more favorable rule, ne bis in idem, and non reformatio in pejus. It is argued that these safeguards must be observed in accountability procedures conducted by the Courts of Accounts, especially given the severity of the sanctions and their impact on the legal sphere of those affected. The dissertation also discusses the concept and evolution of Administrative Criminal Law as a hybrid branch, aimed at regulating administrative sanctions that, in nature and effect, resemble criminal penalties. Furthermore, it analyzes how the theories that legitimize punishment — particularly general and special prevention theories — can be applied to the interpretation of administrative sanctions, lending rationality to their repressive and educational functions. Through normative and jurisprudential analysis, the research identifies sanctioning practices that deviate from a guarantees-based model, such as objective liability, automatic penalties for formal irregularities, and the lack of standardized criteria for penalty calibration. The study concludes with proposals to improve the performance of the Courts of Accounts, including the regulation of infraction severity, the requirement of intent or gross error, the strengthening of the guiding role of these institutions, the systematization of case law, and the use of technology to enhance oversight and reduce excessive formalism. It concludes that adherence to the principles of Administrative Criminal Law is essential to ensure the legitimacy of the sanctioning power of the Courts of Accounts, promoting a balance between combating mismanagement and protecting the fundamental rights of public officials. This research contributes to the doctrinal and institutional debate on the limits and possibilities of external control within the Rule of Law and paves the way for empirical and comparative studies that may further deepen the understanding of the current sanctioning model.
This dissertation aims to analyze the sanctioning role of the Courts of Accounts from the perspective of Administrative Criminal Law, addressing the legal foundations, constitutional limits, and theoretical parameters that should guide the imposition of sanctions by these institutions. Although they are not part of the Judiciary, the Courts of Accounts play a relevant role in the external control of Public Administration and have the authority to impose sanctions with a materially punitive nature, such as fines, orders of reimbursement, declarations of ineligibility, and disqualifications from holding public office. Throughout the study, it is emphasized that the audit process encompasses three main dimensions — political, compensatory, and sanctioning — with focus on the latter, which justifies the application of core criminal law principles such as legality, typicity, culpability, proportionality, retroactivity of the more favorable rule, ne bis in idem, and non reformatio in pejus. It is argued that these safeguards must be observed in accountability procedures conducted by the Courts of Accounts, especially given the severity of the sanctions and their impact on the legal sphere of those affected. The dissertation also discusses the concept and evolution of Administrative Criminal Law as a hybrid branch, aimed at regulating administrative sanctions that, in nature and effect, resemble criminal penalties. Furthermore, it analyzes how the theories that legitimize punishment — particularly general and special prevention theories — can be applied to the interpretation of administrative sanctions, lending rationality to their repressive and educational functions. Through normative and jurisprudential analysis, the research identifies sanctioning practices that deviate from a guarantees-based model, such as objective liability, automatic penalties for formal irregularities, and the lack of standardized criteria for penalty calibration. The study concludes with proposals to improve the performance of the Courts of Accounts, including the regulation of infraction severity, the requirement of intent or gross error, the strengthening of the guiding role of these institutions, the systematization of case law, and the use of technology to enhance oversight and reduce excessive formalism. It concludes that adherence to the principles of Administrative Criminal Law is essential to ensure the legitimacy of the sanctioning power of the Courts of Accounts, promoting a balance between combating mismanagement and protecting the fundamental rights of public officials. This research contributes to the doctrinal and institutional debate on the limits and possibilities of external control within the Rule of Law and paves the way for empirical and comparative studies that may further deepen the understanding of the current sanctioning model.
Description
Keywords
Tribunais de Contas Direito Penal Administrativo Culpabilidade Dosimetria Responsabilização Devido processo legal Courts of Accounts Administrative Criminal Law Culpability Sentencing criteria Accountability Due process of law