Gilmar Mendes is ordered to pay R$ 50,000 to a lawyer – 03/01/2023 – Power

The Court of Justice of São Paulo condemned this Wednesday (1st) the minister of the STF (Supreme Federal Court) Gilmar Mendes to pay compensation of R$ 50 thousand for moral damages to lawyer Modesto Carvalhosa. The decision can be appealed.

The conviction is related to a lawsuit brought by Carvalhosa for statements by Gilmar.

According to Carvalhosa’s lawyer, Martin Della Valle, the STF minister “uttered various offenses” in interviews and during sessions of the Supreme Court.

“The offenses were, among others, calling him a false teacher (when everyone knows he taught for decades at Largo São Francisco) and accusing him of using the Petrobras agreement in Lava Jato to benefit his clients”, said Della Valle, in reference to the creation of a billionaire fund with money from compensation imposed on the state-owned company on the occasion of Lava Jato.

Carvalhosa defended companies investigated by the operation. Sought through his advisory, Minister Gilmar did not appear.

Sought through his advisory, the minister did not manifest.

The process ended this Wednesday had been initiated in May last year. Two years earlier, in 2019, Carvalhosa asked for the impeachment of Gilmar Mendes, based on information obtained by Operation Lava Jato.

Documents produced by the operation pointed out that Aloysio Nunes Ferreira, Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of Michel Temer (MDB), “acted together” with the STF minister in favor of Paulo Vieira de Souza, former director of Dersa and PSDB operator in São Paulo. Paul. The inquiry was shelved in 2022.

The decision against Gilmar is subject to appeal both at the TJ-SP and at the Superior Court of Justice, according to the minister’s defense, made by lawyer Rodrigo Mudrovitsch.

Still in the first instance, in 2022, Gilmar’s defense stated that the statements were made in his professional capacity as a minister, in which he cannot be held directly personally responsible.

He also said that magistrates can base their decisions and statements on facts and various arguments, even if not directly linked to the process under trial.

It also held that judges can only be penalized if they have acted intentionally or fraudulently and that civil liability originally lies with the State.

Specifically about the criticisms leveled at Carvalhosa, he said at the time that the minister was treated “not at all friendly” by him and that there was no offensive character in criticism of the lawyer’s professional performance.