Court voids Tuma Júnior's ousting, restores him as council president | OneFootball

The São Paulo courts ruled in favor of the lawsuit filed by Romeu Tuma Júnior and declared null and void the acts that resulted in the official’s temporary removal from the presidency of Corinthians’ Deliberative Council.

The ruling, issued last Thursday (24) by Judge Antonio Manssur Filho of the 2nd Civil Court of the Tatuapé Regional Forum, upheld the injunction that had already reinstated Tuma to the position and definitively ordered that he be allowed to complete the term for which he was elected.

Photo: José Manoel Idalgo/ Agência Corinthians

The annulment lawsuit was filed by Tuma Júnior against Osmar Stabile and Denis Nieto Piovezan, and Corinthians was later included as a defendant. The plaintiff alleged that he had been irregularly removed after an extraordinary meeting of the Deliberative Council held on March 23 of this year. The session had been called directly by president Osmar Stabile with the purpose of deliberating on Tuma’s temporary removal from office.

At the time, the president and vice president of the Deliberative Council were not present, and the proceedings were initially conducted by the first secretary of the Board, Maria Ângela de Sousa Ocampos. She formally declared the meeting closed after pointing out a defect in the notice and the absence of a prior disciplinary proceeding before the Ethics and Discipline Committee.

Even so, some of the council members decided to continue the proceedings. Denis Nieto Piovezan, second secretary, took over the chair and submitted Tuma’s precautionary removal to a vote of the plenary, where it was approved by 115 votes. The result, however, was not recognized by the Council presidency.

Four irregularities identified by the court

When analyzing the case, the judge identified four defects considered decisive for annulling the acts. The first was related to the calling of the extraordinary meeting itself. The ruling concluded that Osmar Stabile could not have directly called the Deliberative Council through a unilateral notice.

According to the decision, Article 82, subsection II, item “b,” of Corinthians’ bylaws establishes that extraordinary meetings may be requested by the president of the board, the president of Cori, the Fiscal Council, or by 50 members of the Deliberative Council itself. In such cases, the request must be reasoned and sent to the Council Board, and it is up to the president of the body to issue the notice within a maximum period of 30 days.

The judge therefore distinguished the authority to request that a meeting be held from the authority to actually call it. Although the defense argued that Article 112, item 6, of the bylaws would authorize the president of the board to call the Council, the ruling held that this interpretation would empty the specific procedure set out in Article 82.

“Admitting such a thesis would completely empty the command of Article 82, II, ‘b,’” the decision stated. For the judge, by directly publishing the March 18 notice, Stabile usurped the authority of the Presidency of the Deliberative Council, also violating the separation between the club’s internal powers provided for in the bylaws.

Lack of disciplinary proceedings was also deemed irregular

The second basis for nullity was the absence of prior disciplinary proceedings. The ruling found that, although the defenses classified the removal as a political-administrative measure and a precautionary governance action, the temporary removal of an elected official constitutes a restriction on a subjective right and therefore should observe defense guarantees.

Article 32 of Corinthians’ bylaws provides that any penalty imposed on a member must ensure full defense before the Ethics and Discipline Committee, including the possibility of producing evidence. Article 33 requires the opening of proceedings, while Article 89 gives the Committee jurisdiction to hear, investigate, and report on disciplinary proceedings involving members of the Deliberative Council, the Board, and Cori.

In the case under review, the judge pointed out that no prior administrative proceeding had been opened against Tuma Júnior. A certificate issued on June 3, 2026, by the Deliberative Council itself stated that no formal disciplinary investigation had been opened up to that date because representative Osmar Stabile had failed to present the evidence.

The ruling also considered relevant the later definitive dismissal of the reciprocal ethics-disciplinary complaints, which occurred on June 26. According to the decision, the dismissal occurred for lack of just cause and because of the complainant’s failure to identify witnesses and provide the requested security footage.

Meeting was considered closed before the vote

Another decisive point was the conduct of the March 23 meeting itself. According to the ruling, in the absence of the president and vice president of the Council, the first secretary regularly assumed the chair of the proceedings, in accordance with the Internal Rules.

The document states that Maria Ângela de Sousa Ocampos, after reviewing the notice and finding the absence of an opinion from the Ethics Committee, declared the meeting closed. Her statement was recorded in a notarial minute drawn up by a notary public, giving public faith to what occurred.

For the judge, once the session had been validly closed by the authority presiding over it, it would not be possible for the second secretary to later take over the proceedings and hold a new vote. The Internal Rules establish an order of succession for the Board: the vice president replaces the president and, in the latter’s absence, the first secretary assumes the role. The second secretary is responsible for replacing the first secretary in the event of absence or impediment.

The ruling also pointed to an irregularity in the reconstitution of the Board, which included the participation of Paulo Roberto Bastos Pedro, secretary of the Advisory Council. According to the judge, Article 80, paragraph 3, of the bylaws prohibits the accumulation of functions on the Board of the Deliberative Council with positions in Cori. For this set of reasons, the acts carried out after the closing of the session were considered legally null.

Bylaws do not provide for precautionary removal by the plenary

The fourth basis presented in the ruling was the lack of any bylaw provision allowing the plenary of the Deliberative Council to precautionarily remove its president through a direct vote.

The judge noted that the bylaws establish specific situations for loss or vacancy of office and require the opening of proceedings before the Ethics and Discipline Committee when it comes to loss of the position of lifetime council member. The document also provides for the possibility of an interim suspension, but assigns that authority exclusively to the Ethics and Discipline Committee and limits it to certain serious violations.

Thus, the ruling concluded that there was no statutory basis for the plenary of the Deliberative Council to create, by simple majority and without formal proceedings, a preventive removal measure against the president of the body. For the judge, the adoption of a restrictive measure without express provision also violated Article 58 of the Civil Code, which establishes that no member may be deprived of a right or function except in the cases and in the manner provided for by law or the bylaws.

Based on the four grounds, the judge upheld the emergency relief previously granted and ruled in favor of the lawsuit.

The ruling ordered the definitive reinstatement of Romeu Tuma Júnior to the full exercise of the presidency of Corinthians’ Deliberative Council, guaranteeing the full completion of the term for which he was elected, in compliance with the bylaws.

In addition, the notice issued by Osmar Stabile on March 18, all deliberative acts carried out at the March 23 meeting after the closing ordered by the acting chairwoman, and the minutes later signed by Denis Nieto Piovezan and the ad hoc secretary were declared null and void.

The court also ordered the definitive cancellation of the registration made in April, which formalized the effects of the removal. The defendants were also prohibited from carrying out acts based on the annulled decision or from creating obstacles to Tuma’s exercise of his functions as president of the Deliberative Council, under penalty of the fine already established in the injunction.

Finally, the defendants were held jointly liable for payment of court costs and procedural expenses demonstrably advanced by the plaintiff, in addition to attorney’s fees. As the value assigned to the case was R$1,000 and the economic benefit was considered immeasurable, the court-awarded attorney’s fees were set at R$15,000.

The document orders the case to be closed after all appeals are exhausted, without prejudice to the possibility of later enforcement of the judgment.

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