Definition of the future of Ednaldo Rodrigues in command of the CBF is postponed by the STF

The Federal Supreme Court (STF) resumed this Wednesday (9) the trial of the case involving Ednaldo Rodrigues' continued presidency of the CBF .

The case was not completed. After oral arguments from three lawyers, including the one from the CBF, there was only a vote from Minister Gilmar Mendes, rapporteur of the case. As expected, Gilmar defended the terms of the preliminary decision given by himself, which is currently in force. In other words, Ednaldo's permanence in office.

Minister Flávio Dino asked for views, and therefore it is not possible to predict when the case will return to the Plenary. Ministers Luís Roberto Barroso and Luiz Fux declared themselves impeached. Initially, the trial would serve to endorse or not the injunction that Gilmar gave in January. But the minister's vote was for the final analysis of the merits of the case, which brings a broader perspective to the matter.

What was the discussion?

The center of the issue is the legitimacy of the Public Ministry of Rio de Janeiro (MP-RJ) to sign a Conduct Adjustment Term (TAC) with the CBF. This TAC was the foundation for the election that brought Ednaldo Rodrigues to power.

The Rio Court had overturned the validity of the TAC and the MP’s role in the case. With this, he shook up the structures of the CBF, appointing the president of the Superior Court of Sports Justice (STJD) as temporary manager of the entity. But the case ended up at the STF, after action by the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB). Then came Gilmar's injunction.

The rapporteur Gilmar Mendes argued that, yes, the MP could have signed the TAC with the CBF. In his vote, he also criticized the conduct of the process by the Rio Court of Justice (TJ-RJ).

"They are extravagant things in the processes that need to be noted", he said, as he described the procedure and the facts that occurred while the process was on its way to the 19th Civil Chamber.

One of the "extravagances" cited by Gilmar was:

"The CBF appeals remained pending judgment until November 2023, when the process was included on the agenda in the session of the 19th Civil Chamber, on 11/28. Just under a week before the trial session, the judge who was the rapporteur ordered the withdrawal from the agenda and signed the suspicion for personal reasons. then, the new rapporteur of the case, in a particularly expeditious manner, determined the reinstatement of the agenda and was ready to judge. The process was included in the session of 7/12/23."

Gilmar also pointed out that the decisions of the TJ-RJ were what characterized intervention in the CBF. ;">"The persistence of solutions such as the one reached by TJ-RJ will unequivocally imply an even more pronounced violation of the entity's autonomy. A court designating intervenor, which designates directors who start to manage the sports entity."

How did CBF position itself?

CBF was one of the parties that supported the process. It was represented by lawyer Floriano Azevedo Marques.

< /p>

"I come here to reiterate the need to ratify the precautionary measure to avoid that, once there is intervention, the entity is removed from the order international sports. The MP took action discussing a governance issue. An uncertainty has been created that could cause harm. Faced with uncertainty, the autonomous entity decides to pacify the issue by entering into a TAC with the MP. In the exercise of constitutional competence. It would ensure that the conflict was resolved definitively", he said, defending the validity of the term signed by the entity with the MP.

The technical question about the MP

The line of reasoning behind rapporteur Gilmar Mendes' vote was to point out that sport is a social right, provided for in the constitution. Therefore, it is legitimate for the MP to act on matters linked to sporting entities .

"The MP's actions place him in a zone of communication between the State system and the social system. There is a dual relationship in the performance of their functions. (...) Legitimacy must be widely recognized", said Gilmar, later citing the activity of the CBF itself:

"It is the state's duty to encourage formal and non-formal sports. This clearly demonstrates the social interest underlying CBF’s activities. And, therefore, the presence of public interest is necessary to legitimize supervisory action."