Post by nurnobisorker65 on Feb 11, 2024 17:31:11 GMT 7
Allowance in kind of the Ministers of the Federal Supreme Court (…)” . Letters were sent to the Presidency of the Republic, Federal Supreme Court, Superior Court of Justice, Superior Labor Court, Federal Public Ministry, Public Ministry of the Federal District and Territory, Public Labor Ministry, Military Public Ministry and the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region in the sense that they provided information to this Ministerial Body regarding compliance with the provisions of Amendment no. 41/2003, receiving a positive response from all the bodies mentioned above. However, the same response was not obtained by the Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. The Chamber argued that it does not.
Comply with the constitutional provision in view of the “absence of a regulatory standard, indispensable, in this case confer on the administrative acts necessary for the application of the new order the indispensable predicate of legality, especially as regards authorization to access Belgium Email List information considered to be of a private nature” (page 10 of PA . He claimed that there is difficulty in cases where there is an of positions or earnings “originating from budgets of different spheres or levels of power, including involving different federative units, whether in terms of the limit to be applied, or in terms of the competence to determine its application, and eventually.
Determine the cut in salaries and benefits, or even regarding the allocation of resulting budget balances.” He also cited numerous reasons that prevented the application of the constitutional ceiling set out in Amendment No. 41/2003. He concluded by saying that the discipline of article 37, item been submitted for consideration by the Board of Directors, which would be the competent body to deliberate on the measures to be adopted. The problem of the accumulation of positions from different budgets, evidently and with greater intensity, is repeated in the Federal Senate. Now, there is no reason for the other bodies of the Powers of the Union to effectively comply with the remuneration ceiling.
Comply with the constitutional provision in view of the “absence of a regulatory standard, indispensable, in this case confer on the administrative acts necessary for the application of the new order the indispensable predicate of legality, especially as regards authorization to access Belgium Email List information considered to be of a private nature” (page 10 of PA . He claimed that there is difficulty in cases where there is an of positions or earnings “originating from budgets of different spheres or levels of power, including involving different federative units, whether in terms of the limit to be applied, or in terms of the competence to determine its application, and eventually.
Determine the cut in salaries and benefits, or even regarding the allocation of resulting budget balances.” He also cited numerous reasons that prevented the application of the constitutional ceiling set out in Amendment No. 41/2003. He concluded by saying that the discipline of article 37, item been submitted for consideration by the Board of Directors, which would be the competent body to deliberate on the measures to be adopted. The problem of the accumulation of positions from different budgets, evidently and with greater intensity, is repeated in the Federal Senate. Now, there is no reason for the other bodies of the Powers of the Union to effectively comply with the remuneration ceiling.