Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 3:06:45 GMT -5
For not considering that the municipality of São Bernardo do Campo has a specific local interest in contradicting the São Paulo rule of ordering the closure of construction material stores during the coronavirus pandemic, the president of the São Paulo Court of Justice, Geraldo Francisco Pinheiro Franco, This Thursday (9/4) denied the request to suspend the injunction that authorized the operation of Casa e Construção.
ConJur
Geraldo Francisco Pinheiro Franco denied request to suspend ConJur injunction
The company filed a writ of mandamus after the municipality of ABC banned the operation of stores in the sector. C&C company obtained an injunction that authorized its establishments to remain open.
The municipality of Greater São B2B Lead Paulo requested the suspension of the injunction on the grounds that the operation of construction material stores prevents the proper response to the coronavirus pandemic. Furthermore, the local administration argued that sales can continue via the internet.
Pinheiro Franco pointed out that São Bernardo's municipal decrees contradict Deliberation 5/2020 of the Covid-19 Extraordinary Administrative Council and state Decree 64,881/2020, extended by state Decree 69,420/2020. The rules include construction material stores in the list of essential activities — therefore, allowed to operate during quarantine.
The Union and states have concurrent competence to legislate on health protection and defense. And municipalities can complement these standards if there is local interest, recently decided Federal Supreme Court Minister Alexandre de Moraes. Citing this understanding, the president of the TJ-SP highlighted that the municipality of São Bernardo did not demonstrate that it had specific reasons to prohibit the operation of construction material stores, contrary to São Paulo rules.
The judge also highlighted that the injunction does not have the potential to cause serious harm to public order, health and safety. "I insist that the risk of damage with the suspension of the preliminary decision exceeds — by far — that resulting from its compliance, as it affects relevant activities whose operation — whether in person or remotely — is permitted under the aforementioned state decrees.”