The present study focuses on the institute of the civil non-prosecution agreement, provided for
in art. 17-B of Law nº 8.429/92, included by Law nº 14.230/21. At the time of enactment, any
type of transaction was prohibited by art. 17, § 1º, of the AIL, which was amended by Law nº
13.964/19 allowing to conclude civil non-prosecution agreements. However, the article that
disciplined the conditions for formalizing the agreements (art. 17-A of the AIL) was vetoed
under the justification for going against the public interest and generating legal uncertainty.
The veto caused deficiencies in the effectiveness of the instrument, which were partially
corrected when the new law on administrative impropriety was enacted. With that, the Law nº
14.230/21 added art. 17-B to the AIL regulating agreements within improbity actions. Indeed,
the retrospect points to a profound change in the understanding of carrying out transactions in
the course of legal actions on the practice of corruption and improbity. Based on this premise,
by means of a bibliographic review, the study analyzes the legislative evolution that
culminated in the promulgation of the civil non-prosecution agreement, in order to understand
the contours and vicissitudes in terms of decision-making agreements in the country. In the
introduction, the agreement is approached as a historical phenomenon present since before the
republic until the constitutional protection of administrative probity, in addition to the current
critical panorama of judicialization and litigation. In the second topic, the legislative
background and the doctrinal production around transaction modalities are explored, with
emphasis on changes in the civil procedural system and the provision of specific instruments,
such as the leniency agreement and the conduct adjustment term. In the third topic, the
transformations in the AIL are studied until the inclusion of art. 17-B to the AIL by Law No.
14.230/21. In the fourth topic, the particularities of the new transaction mechanism are
analyzed, evaluating its applicability in administrative improbity actions in view of the recent
judgments of the Federal Supreme Court on the matter. Finally, the study concludes that,
despite filling the normative gap left by the presidential veto of art. 17-A of Law nº 8.429/92,
the civil non-prosecution agreement still faces latent questions regarding the effectiveness of
itself in the scope of improbity actions, due to the legislative novelty, due to the continuous
evolution of the doctrine of transactions and self-composition in the brazilian legal system.
|
