Os limites na aplicação do princípio da autotutela na administração pública ao revogar seus atos nos concursos públicos
Keywords:
Public administration, Principles, Revocation, Limits, Public tenderAbstract
This article aims to analyze the public exercise, defining concepts and generating consequences of the repeal of administrative acts, brought and debated by many authors of Administrative Law. Public Administration is a state structure marked by historic moments and with its own characteristics, with the function meet the intrinsic innovations democratic state, where one of his attributes is linked or act in a discretionary manner, protecting the rights and guarantees. The discretion allows the government to act with a margin of choice, which among others, is to review their actions and may revoke them for convenience or opportunity, as the Principle of autotutela. It happens that such freedom of revocation applied uncontrollably may cause, abuses, illegalities, for which this article is to inquire about the existence of circumstantial limits and / or time, in defense of those who suffer the effects of repeal. In this sense, among them susceptible acts of revocation is the contest for public office provision, being such a procedure. Thus, the limitations on the recall power are being introduced gradually, through laws , principles and the use of the Internal Control and judiciary subject to administrative decision , including the repeal them , if this is considered unnecessary and inappropriate. However, of the rescinding decision, it will be the Public Administration repair to run, even in internal control and having rape or right threat, can the control judiciary, if required, review the decisions taken by the public administration, which will act weighing the principles violated to provide appropriate provision.
References
ALMEIDA, Fernando Henrique Mendes de. Revogação dos atos administrativos. Revista da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de São Paulo. V. 53. 1958. Disponível em: http://www.revistas.usp.br/rfdusp/issue/view/5379. Acesso em: mai. 2015.
BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antônio. Curso de Direito Administrativo. 27ª ed. São Paulo: Ed. Malheiros, 2010. p. 443-444.
BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antônio. Curso de Direito Administrativo. 31ª ed. São Paulo: Ed. Malheiros, 2013.
BANDEIRA DE MELLO, Celso Antônio. Discricionariedade e Controle Jurisdicional. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Ed. Malheiros, 2012.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Súmula 473. Vade Mecum, São Paulo: Saraiva, 2014.
CARVALHO FILHO, José dos Santos. Manual de direito Administrativo. São Paulo: Ed. Atlas, 2013. p. 167-172.
DI PIETRO, Maria Sylvia Zanella. Discricionariedade Administrativa na Constituição de 1988. São Paulo: Ed. Atlas, 2001. p. 16-20 e 46.
MEDAUAR, Odete. Direito Administrativo Moderno, de acordo com a EC 19/98. 3ª ed. São Paulo, 1999.
MEIRELLES, Hely Lopes. Direito Administrativo Brasileiro. 29ª ed. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2004.
MELLO, Oswaldo Aranha Bandeira de. Princípios Gerais de Direito Administrativo. São Paulo: Ed. Malheiros Editores, 1979, 2ª ed. p. 633-639.
OLIVEIRA, Regis Fernandes de. Ato Administrativo. 6ª ed. São Paulo: Ed.Revista dos Tribunais, 2014.
VALIM, Rafael Ramires Araujo. O Principio da Segurança Jurídica no Direito Administrativo Brasileiro. MEC, São Paulo, 2009. Disponível em: <http://dominiopublico.Mec.gov/download/teste/arqs/cp091504.pdf>. Acesso em: out.2015.
ZANCANER, Weida. Da Convalidação e da Invalidação dos atos administrativos. 2ª ed. São Paulo: Ed. Malheiros. 2001.