After rejecting, the second Court of the State of Amazonas Treasury filed class action with a request for Emergency Guardianship against former interim governor of Amazonas, David Almeida (Forward). Authored by the then state deputy Bosco Saraiva (SD), the action requested, in 2017, to block all actions of David management expenses, with charges of illegal payments, not proved the alleged irregularities.
According to the defense of David Almeida, for it is a class action that was dismissed, the degree of jurisdiction seconds was necessary. "The process rose to the Amazon Court (Tjam) and there at the court confirmed that the class action is unfounded, she had no justification. Now was the final act of sending the parties express saying that the process will be terminated ", explained the lawyer Tadeu de Souza.
At the time of the opening action, Mr Bosco Saraiva requested the suspension of all financial-budgetary operations, and any procedures bidding, Direct hires, expropriations, donations among others, they were at odds with the Fiscal Responsibility Law and the seals of the Election Act for the term end of period.
As a way of plastering the Government of Amazonas, Bosco also asked that the State through its direct and indirect administration not perform new bidding procedures and firmasse or any administrative contract, rifts derivative bids, exemption or waiver whose impactassem objects in the period extrapolasse the actions of the then interim government.
In the first decision against the popular action, signed in 2017 by President of the Amazon Court (Tjam), Judge Flavio Humberto Lopes Pascarelli, he argued overturned the injunction that suspended all government actions. The judge argued at the time that it imporatia rich bass to public order, since it would paralyze all utilities.
In the published sentence 2018, the right to judge Leoney Figlioulo Harraquina, in harmony with the opinion of the State of Amazonas prosecutors (MPE-AM) judged by the extinction of class action. According to the decision, the initial part of the action did not support the necessary requirements to support the popular action.
In the text of the decision, the judge also described that the plaintiff has not demonstrated and the evidence of the case revealed no possible illegality or harmfulness to public property that configuring it the facts alleged in the application.