Court rules Corinthians lifetime councillor posts, membership wait illegal | OneFootball

The São Paulo Court ruled in favor of the lawsuit filed by council member Peterson Ruan Aiello do Couto Ramos and member Caio César Domingues de Almeida against Corinthians and declared null and void the club bylaw rules that establish the existence of lifetime council members and impose a five-year waiting period for equity members to vote and run for office.

The decision was handed down this Monday (31) by Judge Guilherme Augusto de Oliveira Barna of the 4th Civil Court. The ruling, which Central do Timão had access to, finds that both rules violate principles set out in the Federal Constitution, the Civil Code, and the General Sports Law.

Photo: José Manoel Idalgo/Corinthians Agency

Despite granting the requests, however, the decision does not produce immediate practical effects. The judge himself ordered that the ruling remain under suspensive effect, with enforcement acts suspended until the judgment becomes final or unless there is a different ruling from the appellate court.

The lawsuit

Peterson Ruan and Caio César argued that Corinthians’ bylaw structure contains legal flaws, especially because it maintains 100 lifetime council member positions, which correspond to one-third of the Deliberative Council, and because it requires a five-year waiting period for equity members to exercise their political rights.

According to the initial petition, the lifetime positions are not subject to periodic elections or alternation of power. The bylaws establish that the occupants of these seats remain in office for an indefinite term, with their tenure ending only in situations such as death, resignation, or expulsion.

The plaintiffs also challenged the restriction imposed on equity members. In their view, the five-year requirement to exercise the right to vote and run for office creates a disproportionate barrier to the political participation of club members.

The argument presented in the lawsuit was that the autonomy guaranteed to sports entities by Article 217, item I, of the Federal Constitution does not allow associations to establish rules incompatible with public policy norms.

Corinthians, in turn, defended the validity of the rules. In its defense, the club stated that the existence of lifetime council members and the requirement of a certain membership period are legitimate, historical institutional choices ratified by the membership. The club also invoked the autonomy of sports entities and freedom of association.

The São Paulo Public Prosecutor’s Office did not take part in the case after considering that the lawsuit involves legally capable parties and disposable property rights, with no direct and individualized broad repercussion under the procedure in question.

Judge considers Corinthians’ autonomy limited by legislation

In the reasoning, the judge recognized the autonomy of sports entities to define their organization and operation, but emphasized that this autonomy is not absolute.

According to the ruling, private associations must respect the limits established by the Constitution and by public policy laws. The judge cited, among other provisions, articles of the Civil Code and the General Sports Law.

The decision highlights that sports legislation establishes democratic management and participation as fundamental principles. It also points out that the General Sports Law provides mechanisms that enable members to participate in setting guidelines and overseeing the activities of sports organizations.

Another basis used by the judge was case law from the Superior Court of Justice on civil associations. The ruling cites a precedent in which the STJ considered null and void bylaw clauses that improperly restricted members’ voting rights.

100 lifetime seats are considered incompatible with democratic management

In analyzing the first issue, the judge concluded that the existence of 100 lifetime council member positions violates the principles of democratic management, fixed terms of office, and alternation in the exercise of power.

The ruling specifically cites Article 76, item I, and the corresponding paragraphs of Corinthians’ bylaws, which regulate the category of lifetime council members.

For the judge, the problem is not limited to the indefinite duration of the terms. The decision mentions that the Deliberative Council has relevant powers within the club’s structure, such as reviewing the board’s annual accounts, voting on the budget forecast, and deliberating on strategic institutional matters.

In this context, reserving one-third of the Council’s seats for permanent lifetime members creates, according to the ruling, a group that is not subject to the members’ periodic electoral oversight.

The judge also considered that this structure may give lifetime members practical blocking power in certain deliberations that require a qualified two-thirds quorum. Therefore, he concluded that the creation of perpetual positions with political decision-making power in a sports entity is incompatible with the constitutional and statutory legal order.

Five-year waiting period is also considered abusive

The second issue analyzed by the judge concerns the five-year period required for equity members to fully exercise their political rights.

The ruling finds that the rule exceeds the bounds of reasonableness when applied to members who regularly joined the membership, are in good standing, and comply with the other obligations set out in the bylaws.

The judge acknowledged that the Civil Code allows associations to establish categories with special advantages. For him, however, this possibility does not authorize the unjustified suppression of fundamental political rights for a period considered excessive.

In the assessment recorded in the decision, preventing a member in good standing from participating in the formation of the collective will and in assembly deliberations creates a distinction incompatible with fairness and with Article 60 of the General Sports Law. For this reason, the ruling declared null and void the rules regarding the five-year waiting period, especially Articles 44, 50, paragraph 2, and 68 of the black-and-white club’s bylaws.

Ruling orders an end to lifetime tenure and the waiting period

In the operative part, the judge granted the requests made by the plaintiffs, with a decision on the merits. The first order declares the absolute nullity, with ex tunc effect, of the bylaw clauses that establish and regulate the positions of lifetime deliberative council members.

The ruling also orders that the current occupants of those seats be treated the same as council members subject to a term of office, periodic election, and approval by the General Assembly.

In legal practice, the expression ex tunc means that the declaration of nullity is retroactive, as if the rule deemed invalid could not have produced legal effects since its origin.

The second order declares the nullity of the rules that impose a five-year waiting period for the exercise of the right to vote and run for office by members holding equity titles who are in good standing and enjoying their bylaw rights.

Decision does not take effect immediately

Despite the ruling being favorable to the plaintiffs, the judge made it clear that the decision does not currently alter Corinthians’ structure. This is because there is a prior decision by the São Paulo Court of Justice related to the case. In the interlocutory appeal records, the TJ-SP had granted suspensive effect and stayed an injunction that had set aside the bylaw restriction.

In light of that history, the judge stated that the production of the concrete effects of the new ruling must respect the appeals system and, based on the Code of Civil Procedure, ordered that the ruling remain under automatic suspensive effect.

Thus, although the trial court declared the lifetime positions and the five-year waiting period null and void, the rules continue to produce effects until the ruling becomes final, unless there is a different decision from the competent court.

As the club was entirely defeated in the lawsuit, the judge also ordered payment of court costs and procedural expenses. In addition, he set attorney’s fees at R$ 500 in favor of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, based on equitable assessment.

What the decision determines

Lifetime council members: nullity of the rules that create and regulate the positions, with the current occupants treated the same as council members subject to a term and periodic election;

Five-year waiting period: nullity of the rules that prevent equity members in good standing from voting and running for office before that period;

Ex tunc effect: the declaration of nullity is retroactive;

Suspensive effect: despite the lawsuit being granted, the ruling’s orders do not apply immediately.

See more:

Corinthians News

This article was translated into English by Artificial Intelligence. You can read the original version in 🇧🇷 here.