|
|
The protection of consumer relations is a matter of local interest, therefore, municipalities have the power to legislate in this regard. With this understanding, the 2nd Panel of the Federal Supreme Court denied the appeal and maintained the validity of a law from Campina Grande, Paraíba, which prohibits the checking of goods when leaving commercial establishments.
123RF
For the STF, the municipality can prohibit companies from checking purchases when leaving a commercial establishment.
123RF
The state Public Prosecutor's Office filed a B2B Lead public civil action so that wholesale companies would refrain from carrying out searches or any type of verification after the products had passed through the cash register and the invoice was delivered to the consumer, under penalty of a daily fine. In the first instance, the court of the 3rd Civil Court of Campina Grande partially judged the request based on Municipal Law 4,845/2009.
Given the decision, the company appealed to the Paraíba Court of Justice, but its request was not granted. As the sentence was upheld, the group filed an extraordinary appeal with the STF. Monocratically, the rapporteur of the case, minister Ricardo Lewandowski, denied the appeal based on the court's jurisprudence in the sense that it is the municipality's responsibility to legislate on matters of local interest, such as standards for the protection of consumer relations.
In a regulatory appeal, the company alleged the usurpation of the Union's legislative competence to legislate on matters relating to Civil and Commercial Law. He maintained that the topic would not be of local interest, because “the merchandise checking system has been adopted for almost 40 years in all its establishments spread across practically all Brazilian states”.
Lewandowski voted again to dismiss the regulatory appeal. But, after requesting a review, Minister Dias Toffoli differed from the rapporteur by voting to grant the appeal. For him, the rule is not justified by any peculiar aspect of the municipality, as the procedure prohibited by law occurs without distinction in all establishments that the company has in the national territory.
“Possible discipline regarding the conference procedure, whether to prohibit it or establish guidelines, requires legislation of greater scope, and the municipality does not have the authority to rule on the subject”, he stated at the time.
|
|
發表於 11:35:08