Tuesday, August 6th, 2019
President Jair Bolsonaro: Departure from Brasilia / DF to
Sao Paulo / SP at 7:15am. Arrival to São Paulo / SP at 8:35am. Abílio Diniz,
President of the Peninsula Participações at 8:40am. 29th Congress and
ExpoFenabrave Opening Ceremony at 10am. Visit to the new Oncological
Pharmacochemical Plant of the Cristália Group at 12:10pm. Inauguration Ceremony
of the New Oncological Pharmacochemical Plant of the Cristália Group at 1pm.
Departure from Sao Paulo / SP to Brasilia / DF at 2:55pm. Arrival to Brasilia /
DF at 4:15pm. André Luiz de Almeida, Federal Government's Attorney at 5pm.
Launching Ceremony of "Amazon Tambaqui Festival" at 7pm.
Araújo: Support Meeting for
President Juan Guaidó at 8:30am. Inaugural Address by the President of the
Republic of Peru, Mr. Martin Vizcarra at 11:30am. General Debate of the
International Conference for Democracy in Venezuela at 11:45am. Working lunch
hosted by Peruvian Foreign Minister Ambassador Nestor Popolizio at 1:30pm.
Continuation of general debate at 3:15pm. Closing of the International
Conference for Democracy in Venezuela at 6:15pm.
Eduardo's appointment at US embassy is Bolsonaro's
prerogative, says AGU:
Federal Governmet Attorney (AGU) objected to the request of an injunction from
Federal Deputy Jorge Solla (PT) to bar the appointment of Eduardo Bolsonaro
(PSL) to the position of Brazilian Ambassador to the United States . According
to the AGU, by appointing his own son, President Jair Bolsonaro is exercising
'the prerogative of the Chief Executive.'
André Jackson de Holanda Maurício Júnior, substitute for Bahia's 1st Federal
Civil Court, had given Bolsonaro five days to explain about the nomination.
the text, the deputy asks that it be determined 'the immediate inhibition of
the act of nomination of Eduardo Bolsonaro, by his father, President of the
Republic, to exercise the position of Head of Diplomatic Mission in the United
States of America'.
lawsuit also asks the court to determine that the defendants 'refrain from
performing new acts of the same nature, under penalty of daily fine of $
an opinion on the lawsuit, Union lawyer Samuel Augusto Rodrigues Nogueira Neto
states that it is to be noted that the “act” that is intended to be inhibited /
avoided stems from the full exercise of the Chief Executive's own right to
appoint Heads of Mission. Permanent Diplomatic (appointment powers), upon prior
approval of the Federal Senate, in the manner authorized by art. 39 of Law No.
11,440 / 2006 '.
the President of the Republic cannot be restrained in his typical space of
political discretion,” he writes.
AGU also says that the eventual nomination of Deputy Eduardo Bolsonaro, by the
President of the Republic, does not guarantee his appointment to the position
of Ambassador of Brazil, because, by carrying out the system of checks and
balances inscribed in the Federal Constitution, the act The appointment of the
Head of Permanent Diplomatic Mission necessarily depends on prior approval by
the Federal Senate. '
the act that the present action intends to avoid poses no risk to the useful
outcome of the case, which justifies the urgency of the guardianship,” says the
AGU, justifying that there is no reason to grant the provisional decision.
(2019/08/06 - Estadão)
Brazil and Paraguay: Itaipu:
is a binational hydroelectric power plant located on the Paraná River, on the
border between Brazil and Paraguay. The dam was built by both countries between
1975 and 1982, during which time both were governed by military dictatorships.
The name Itaipu was taken from an island that existed near the construction
a survey of administrative acts regarding the legal nature of Itaipu
Binacional, in order to exclude it from being classified as a public company
for the purposes of Decree-Law 200/1967, we have listed the following acts:
Opinion L-208, dated 9.22.1978 - General Consultancy of the Republic; Opinion
FC-27, dated 9.3.1990 - Consultancy General of the Republic; Opinion GQ-16,
dated 4.29.1994 - Federal Attorney General, Decision of the Federal Court of
Audit on the Control of Itaipu's Management Acts; TCU Judgment 279/95,
concerning the Taking of Accounts 003.064 / 93-0; TCU Judgment 1.477 / 2008,
concerning the Taking of Accounts 015.096 / 2008-3.
the ordinary actions 1904, 1905 and 1957, object of the Rapporteurship of
Minister Marco Aurélio, we have the following lesson:
Binacional was created by the International Treaty celebrated on April 26, 1973
between the Federative Republic of Brazil and the Republic of Paraguay. Known
as the Itaipu Treaty, the agreement was duly approved by the National Congress,
through Legislative Decree 23/1973, promulgated by the President of the
Republic, through Decree 72.707 / 1973, and then became part of the Brazilian
positive law. The same occurred in Paraguay, where the treaty was approved and
ratified under Paraguayan Law 389/1973.
purpose of Itaipu Binacional, according to art. I of the Treaty is to realize
the hydroelectric use of the water resources of the Paraná River, which belong
to a condominium of both countries and, to achieve this purpose, was the
binational company created in equal rights and obligations, prescribing art.
III of the Treaty that:
High Contracting Parties shall create, on equal rights and obligations, a
binational entity called ITAIPU, for the purpose of realizing the hydropower
referred to in Article I.
1 - ITAIPU shall be constituted by ELETROBRÁS and ANDE, with equal
participation in the capital, and shall be governed by the rules set forth in
this Treaty, the Statute constituting its Annex A and the other Annexes.
2 - The Statute and the other Annexes may be amended by mutual agreement
between the two Governments.
organic and functional constitution is made by the participation of Eletrobrás
and Ande in the equal composition of Itaipu's capital. It is in this corporate
character that the By-Laws have both companies as parties to Itaipu Binacional
(art. I and III), without affecting the specific nature of the binational
regard to the legal regime established in the Treaty rules and its Annexes, the
Itaipu Statute (Annex A) is noteworthy, which can only be amended by mutual
agreement between the States Parties (art. III, §§ 1 2 and 2, Article VI, of
the Treaty of Itaipu).
bylaws provide that the binational company has legal, financial and
administrative capacity, as well as technical responsibility, to study, design,
direct and execute the works it has as its object, as well as to put them into
operation and exploit them. As a result of these attributes and for the purpose
of fulfilling them, the entity may acquire rights and contract obligations
addition, the strict egalitarian criterion, which presides over its composition
and structure at all times, also means that the governing bodies of Itaipu
Binacional are integrated by an equal number of nationals from both countries
and As an example of similarities at the international level, they have two
headquarters, of equal rank and importance, in Brasilia and Asunción, without
this peculiar circumstance resulting in the breaking of institutional unity
(Treaty of Itaipu, art. IV).
Binacional is, therefore, a private international organization, endowed with a
corporate nature, born of a treaty and with full capacity of international law.
As Francisco Rezek states, Itaipu is, in fact, a legal entity of binational
private law.1 It presents, however, two noteworthy peculiarities. The first is
that it is not a multilateral treaty, but concluded between two sovereign
states, which constitute a binational entity, based on the equity participation
of two companies of different nationality, ELETROBRÁS - Centrais Elétricas
Brasileiras SA and ANDE - Administración Nacional de Electricidad, among which
there is no outstanding legal position, but of equivalence, that is, it is, as
the treaty itself affirms, of a binational. The second, arising from the first,
is that there is no split of the entity. The two national companies join to form
a third, Itaipu Binacional. And they remain with their own legal personality in
their respective business activities within the domestic economy of the country
of origin. Consequently, there is no mention of: a) double and split
administration, but of uniqueness; b) impossible to control, within the limits
of the legislation of each of the top parties….
and Paraguay freely signed the terms of the agreement, which makes law between
the parties - pacta sunt servanda principle.
so doing, both states have relinquished a portion of their competencies,
including hiring employees in accordance with their respective domestic
legislation. There are no reasons, therefore, to make one or the other -
Brazilian or Paraguayan - prevail legal regime.
stated in Opinion L-208 of 22.9.1978 of the General Consultancy of the
it seems entirely necessary to substantiate the assertion at length, since it
is clear from all the light that the national law of a country cannot overrule
the power to govern an entity born of the joint will of two countries, and not
edited in view of this. .
is the terms of the treaty as well as the legal principles that coexist with
the autonomy of the parties and the dissimilar agreement that can regulate
situations not explicitly foreseen. ”
since 1973, Brazil and Paraguay have been committed to acquiring the total
installed power of the Itaipu Plant, jointly or separately. All electricity
produced is shared equally, but the treaty allows one country to sell to the
other what it does not use for its own consumption. Paraguay consumes only 15%
of its entitlement and sells the rest to Brazil.
May 24 this year, in Brasilia, diplomats and technicians from both countries
agreed on Itaipu's remuneration conditions until the contracts were revised in
2023. Paraguay accepted, for this stage, an additional charge of almost US $ 50
million per year, limited to consumption variation (maximum 6%). For two
months, this pre-agreement was kept confidential. Revealed last week, it gave
rise to the interpretation of an understanding prejudicial to Paraguay's national
interests. Local opposition, majority in the legislature, demanded the
revocation of the compromise and accused Abdo Benítez's government of
committing a crime against the motherland. A crisis broke out with street
protests, even in front of the Brazilian embassy. In the Senate and House, in
Asuncion, evocations of the Triple Alliance War (1864-1870) prevailed, fought
and lost against Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. The chancellor and the
diplomatic and technical teams involved in the negotiation resigned.
Oppositionists advanced on the idea of an impeachment request from the
president and his deputy Hugo Velázquez, involved in the negotiations.
the present case there is a discussion about the most recent agreement between
Brazil and Paraguay, which would clearly appear to be disproportionate to
Foreign Minister Antonio Rivas Palacios announced on Thursday the cancellation
of the diplomatic minutes that triggered a serious political crisis in Asuncion
and put President Mario Abdo Benitez under threat of impeachment. According to
the Paraguayan Chancellery, the decision was communicated to the Brazilian
ambassador Carlos Simas Magalhães. In the minutes, the Paraguayan government
had agreed to pay more for energy from the Itaipu binational hydroelectric dam.
Paraguayan High Contracting Party has announced its unilateral and sovereign
decision to terminate the Bilateral Act of May 24, 2019," says the
Paraguayan document, which was signed by the Brazilian ambassador. According to
the Chancellery of the neighboring country, Brazil and Paraguay have determined
that Itaipu's technical bodies redefine the energy schedule to be contracted by
Eletrobras and Ande (Paraguay's state power company) between 2019 and 2022.
was precisely the Brazilian pressure for Paraguay to declare a larger contract
for the so-called “guaranteed” energy, not counting the much cheaper “surplus
energy” that led to the May settlement and the political crisis it provoked.
According to Paraguayan technicians, the country's spending would increase by
at least $ 200 million annually.
Brazilian government acted well, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in
diligent conduct, it agreed with Abdo Benítez's proposal to revoke the
agreement. In coordinated action with the United States, it has acted
diplomatically to alleviate the crisis by warning of risks of non-compliance
with the Constitution and even by waving the Mercosur Treaty's democratic
well: this is not an annulment, which involves defects in the administrative
act entered into, but revocation, which undoubtedly involves the deconstitution
of the administrative act, for reasons of convenience and administrative
opportunity. It is a matter of rediscussing the merit of the administrative
act, from its motives and objects, which are reconsidered. It is not just a
political act, but an act of correct administration. (2019/08/06 - Estadão)