Dever estatal de indenizar nos contratos administrativos inválidos por ausência de licitação: boa-fé objetiva, consequencialismo e segurança jurídica (Contractor Restitution in Void Public Procurement Contracts: Objective Good Faith, Consequentialism, and Legal Certainty)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Portuguese Abstract: Este artigo analiza a jurisprudencia do STJ sobre o dever estatal de indenizar nos contratos administrativos invalidos por ausencia de licitacao e aponta para seu papel no grau de corrupcao hoje existente nas licitacoes no Pais. O artigo sugere a inadequacao do modelo de interpretacao usualmente utilizado na analise do principio da seguranca juridica. Pretendeu‑se demonstrar que o modo como o paragrafo unico do art. 59 da Lei n. 8.666/1993 vem sendo interpretado, se por vezes incrementa legitimamente a seguranca juridica do particular contratado, por outras impoe uma transferencia ilegitima dos riscos excessivos desse particular aos demais individuos. Com isso, a decisao judicial que deixa de observar todos os riscos normais e excessivos presentes no caso a ser julgado, bem como as incertezas estruturais e patologicas envolvidas nessa decisao, desestabiliza o ambiente negocial e as expectativas dos administrados, e, dessa forma, mais contraria do que prestigia o principio da seguranca juridica. Uma adequada aplicacao do principio da seguranca juridica exige, em um primeiro momento, a consideracao abrangente de todas as externalidades decorrentes da decisao e, entao, a fixacao racionalmente fundamentada de criterios que reduzam as incertezas patologicas e protejam interesses legitimos do ponto de vista do direito. English Abstract: In this paper, I analyze the prevailing jurisprudence of Brazil's Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the state’s obligation for contractor restitution in void public procurement contracts and argue that the interpretation given to Section 59 of Bill 8.666/1993 by the STJ has an important role in maintaining the current state of corruption in public procurement in Brazil. Building on the concept of objective good faith and analyzing the principle of legal certainty from a consequentialist perspective, I argue that the prevailing jurisprudence creates illegitimate certainty for a few competitors by denying legitimate legal certainty to the others.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".