By Roberta Cardoso dos Santos

The contract is an appropriate space for consensual practices, and the use of sanction-substituting agreements should be seen as a collaborative instrument for the sound management of administrative contracts.

First, it is worth noting that sanction-substituting agreements are those that replace the unilateral and imperative decision of the Public Administration regarding the imposition of a penalty. According to Sundfeld and Arruda Câmara, substitutive agreements are “bilateral acts, entered into between the Administration and private parties, with the effect of preventing or terminating administrative sanctioning proceedings and excluding the imposition or enforcement of an administrative sanction”1.

According to Diogo de Figueiredo Moreira Neto, in these agreements the Administration relaxes its characteristic imperative action, which typifies its regular administrative conduct, through the possibility of adopting consensual action2.

Also according to the author, this consensual action is made possible in legally provided cases as a special mode of action (since it is not its typical mode), whenever it is demonstrated, with due reasoning, that the primary public interest in its charge can be served more efficiently and quickly3.

According to Juliana Palma, substitutive agreements have three functions: (i) replacing the administrative sanction at the end of the proceedings, (ii) suspending the course of the sanctioning proceedings upon execution of the administrative agreement, and (iii) preventing the initiation of the administrative sanctioning proceedings4.

The first function enables the Public Administration to replace the administrative sanction with substitutive agreements, so that this modality has no effect on the proceedings, but rather at their end (resolution of the matter).

Finally, the third function establishes that substitutive agreements may prevent the initiation of administrative sanctioning proceedings, with consensual effects evident even before the procedure begins, preventing the start of the investigative phase in which the infractions and sanctions would be determined.

Although the matter is not yet broadly regulated in our legal system, there are some legal provisions that support the conclusion that this type of agreement is viable.

This is the case, for example, of Federal Law 14,133/21, which provides alternatives for the consensual resolution of disputes in administrative contracts, addressing, in its article 151, different alternative dispute resolution methods for the contracts it governs.

Although the caput of art. 151 of the Procurement Law sets out a general provision on alternative dispute resolution methods, covering conciliation, mediation, dispute boards and arbitration, according to Felipe Mucci and Cristina Fortini, no limitation was placed on the cases/subjects of alternative dispute resolution, which could support the interpretation that sanctions are also covered by this possibility5.

Finally, it is essential to mention Law 13,655/18 as legislation that notably introduced the possibility of entering into administrative agreements. According to art. 27 of that statute, “the decision in the proceedings, in the administrative, oversight or judicial spheres, may impose compensation for undue benefits or abnormal or unfair losses resulting from the proceedings or from the conduct of those involved”. This is a general authorization for entering into so-called “substitutive agreements”.

CONCLUSION

First and foremost, sanction-substituting agreements are those that replace the administrative penalty at the end of the proceedings, suspend the course of the sanctioning proceedings upon execution of the administrative agreement, and also prevent the initiation of administrative sanctioning proceedings.

It is essential to note that legislation has opened up possibilities for alternative dispute resolution methods. The Mediation Law (Law 13,140/15) and the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (Law 13,105/15) consolidated the encouragement of alternative dispute resolution methods as an option to an overburdened Judiciary.

Finally, more recently, the new Procurement Law (Law 14,133/21), in its article 151, began to authorize the establishment of dispute boards to resolve disputes arising from administrative contracts, making clear the legislator’s intention to foster self-composed solutions and reduce the judicialization of disputes.

 

——————————

1 SUNDFELD, Carlos Ari; CÂMARA, Jacintho Arruda. Acordos substitutivos nas sanções regulatórias. Revista de Direito Público da Economia – RDPE, Belo Horizonte, year 9, n. 34, p. 133 -151, Apr./Jun. 2011.

2 MOREIRA NETO, Diogo de Figueiredo. Curso de direito administrativo. 16th ed. rev. and updated. – Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2014.

3 MOREIRA NETO, Diogo de Figueiredo. Op. Cit.

4 PALMA, Juliana Bonacorsi de. Atuação administrativa consensual: estudo dos acordos substitutivos no processo administrativo sancionador. 2010. Master’s thesis (State Law) – Faculty of Law, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2010. p. 192

5 DANIEL, Felipe Alexandre Santa Anna Mucci; SILVA, Cristiana Maria Fortini Pinto. Os acordos substitutivos de atividade sancionatória unilateral em contratos da Administração Pública no Brasil. Sequência (Florianópolis), v. 44, p. 19, 2023.

——————————

DANIEL, Felipe Alexandre Santa Anna Mucci; SILVA, Cristiana Maria Fortini Pinto. Os acordos substitutivos de atividade sancionatória unilateral em contratos da Administração Pública no Brasil. Sequência (Florianópolis), v. 44, p. 94635, 2023.

DE BARROS, Victor Carvalho Pessoa et al. Acordos Administrativos Substitutivos de Sanção. Editora Dialética, 2021.

MARQUES NETO, Floriano de Azevedo. CYMBALISTA, Tatiana Matiello. Os Acordos Substitutivos do Procedimento Sancionatório e da Sanção. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Administrativo Econômico (REDAE), Salvador, Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Público, no. 27, August/September/October, 2011.

MOREIRA NETO, Diogo de Figueiredo. Curso de direito administrativo: parte introdutória, parte geral e parte especial / Diogo de Figueiredo Moreira Neto. – 16th ed. rev. and updated. – Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2014.

OLIVEIRA, Rafael Carvalho Rezende. Curso de direito administrativo – 3rd ed. rev., updated and expanded. – Rio de Janeiro: Forense; São Paulo: Método: 2015.

PALMA, Juliana Bonacorsi de. Atuação administrativa consensual: estudo dos acordos substitutivos no processo administrativo sancionador. 2010. Master’s thesis (State Law) – Faculty of Law, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, 2010.

STJ – AREsp: 812548 AM 2015/0286404-9, Reporting Justice: MARCO AURÉLIO BELLIZZE, Publication date: DJ 11/25/2015

STJ – AREsp: 1251013, Reporting Justice: MARCO AURÉLIO BELLIZZE, Publication date: 04/10/2018

SUNDFELD, Carlos Ari; CÂMARA, Jacintho Arruda. Acordos substitutivos nas sanções regulatórias. Revista de Direito Público da Economia – RDPE, Belo Horizonte, year 9, n. 34, p. 133- 151, Apr./Jun. 2011.

TESSEROLLI, Eduardo Ramos Caron. A consensualidade contemporânea: os exemplos do fomento, do acordo substitutivo de sanção administrativa e o procedimento de manifestação de interesse (PMI). Revista de Contratos Públicos-RCP, p. 60.

TRF4. 5004830-97.2021.4.03.6100, Judge Paulo Alberto Sarno, Judgment date: 04/14/2021

WILLEMAN, Flávio de Araújo. “TERMO DE AJUSTAMENTO DE GESTÃO NAS CONCESSÕES: Conversibilidade Das Sanções Administrativas Pecuniárias Em Investimentos”. Revista de Direito da Administração Pública – REDAP.

Published on Migalhas.com (in Portuguese)