This article explores the dosage of penalties applied in administrative contracts, focusing on the recent regulatory developments represented by Law No. 14,133/2021. The study analyzes the legal and regulatory framework that guides the application of sanctions, the legal principles that must be respected, and the methodologies used to define the severity of penalties. It also discusses the challenges faced in the application of sanctions, the economic impact of penalties, the importance of integrity programs, and integration with international compliance and governance practices. Finally, the article presents an overview of penalties and the implications of their application in public administration.
Introduction
The public administration aims to ensure that administrative contracts, aimed at the execution of works, provision of services and supply of goods, are carried out efficiently and meet the public italy telegram data interest. However, the occurrence of non-execution or partial and irregular execution of these contracts, whether due to fraud or negligence, demands the application of penalties, in order to guarantee legal compliance and the protection of public resources. The imposition of these penalties must observe the constitutional principles that guide the public administration, such as legality, proportionality and adversarial proceedings, ensuring that the sanctions are appropriate to the gravity of the infraction committed.
The recent regulatory changes introduced by Law No. 14,133/2021, complemented by the guidelines of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU) and the Federal Court of Auditors (TCU), represent a significant advance by promoting greater clarity and objectivity in the application of administrative sanctions. In addition, these regulations highlight the relevance of integrity programs (compliance) as a mitigating factor for penalties, encouraging the adoption of preventive control and compliance practices by companies. This study aims to analyze these changes and their impact on the dosage of penalties, with a special focus on good governance practices that can strengthen the management of public contracts.
Comparison between Law No. 8,666/1993 and Law No. 14,133/2021 in the Treatment of Administrative Sanctions
The transition from Law No. 8,666/1993 to Law No. 14,133/2021 represented a significant advance in terms of the application of penalties in administrative contracts. Law No. 8,666/1993 established a sanctioning regime that included warnings, fines, temporary suspension from participation in bidding processes, and declaration of unsuitability. However, the previous regime lacked sufficiently detailed criteria for the measurement of these penalties, resulting in an often subjective application and inconsistencies between the decisions of administrative bodies. The arrival of Law No. 14,133/2021 changed this panorama, promoting greater objectivity and clarity in the measurement of sanctions.
The legislator of Law No. 14,133/2021 demonstrated a greater concern with the discrimination of administrative infractions and sanctions, in order to better guide public managers in identifying infractions and the consequent application of penalties. Article 155 [1] , which is similar to article 47 of the extinct Law No. 12,462/2011 (Differentiated Contracting Regime – RDC), presents a list of situations that authorize the imposition of the sanctions provided for in article 156 [2] . The latter article, in its §1º [3] , provides the guidelines that guide the dosage of penalties, establishing objective criteria such as the severity of the infraction, recidivism, and the extent of the damages caused, which contributes to the proportional application of penalties.
- Board index
- All times are UTC
- Delete cookies
- Contact us