Tate law on environmental protection cannot contradict federal law

anik4200

The Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court unanimously declared the unconstitutionality of the Rondônia law that prohibited environmental agencies and the Military Police from destroying or rendering unusable private property seized in environmental operations and inspections. Pixnio Pixnio STF invalidates law that prohibited destruction of assets seized in environmental operations In his vote, the rapporteur, minister Gilmar Mendes, explained that the Union and the states have concurrent competence to legislate on environmental protection. The Union is responsible for establishing general standards, for the purposes of national standardization, and the states and the Federal District can supplement federal legislation, based on regional peculiarities. In this sense, the Environmental Crimes Law (Federal Law 9,605/1998) provides for sanctions for the seizure and destruction of products and instruments of environmental infractions.

These devices were regulated by Decree 6,514/2008, which regulated the actions of the agent responsible for the measures. Thus, for the rapporteur, state Law 5,299/2022 is incompatible with the guidelines of national legislation and exceeded the limits of its action. Mendes also found that the Rondônia law, by imposing the destination to be given to products and instruments seized in environmental inspection ope Special Phone Number Data rations, usurped the Union's exclusive competence to legislate on matters of criminal law and criminal procedure. With information from the STF press office.Refusing an offer of reinstatement to the company does not constitute an abuse of rights nor does it deprive employees of their right to receive compensation in lieu of the period of stability. In this understanding, Subsection I Specialized in Individual Disputes of the Superior Labor Court ordered a factory in Belo Horizonte to pay replacement compensation to a pregnant woman who refused an offer of reinstatement. tirachardz tirachardz Confecção claimed that the assistant never wanted her job back The worker, hired as an administrative assistant, said that she had been dismissed at the end of the trial period and, about a month later, she found out about the pregnancy.



The employer, upon being informed of the pregnancy, called her to talk and proposed reinstatement, according to a conversation held through a messaging application transcribed in the records and telegrams, but received no response. After giving birth, she filed a labor claim to request compensation corresponding to the period of the pregnant woman's provisional stability, without, however, requesting reinstatement. The court of the 12th Labor Court of Belo Horizonte determined his reinstatement under the same previous conditions and granted compensation for the period between dismissal and the date of sending the first telegram. The Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (MG), in the ordinary appeal examination, converted the reinstatement into compensation equivalent to the entire stabilization period. In the first appeal to the TST, the clothing company maintained that the assistant never wanted her job back, as she had refused calls to return.