| Resumo: |
Cares for the present research work on fair compensation in land expropriation and how they form the overpriced severance. The Federal Constitution of 1988 provides that the property shall comply with a social function and sanctioned with the expropriation, upon payment of prior and fair compensation for land reform purposes, homeowners who do not observe. The regulation conferred by Law No. 8.629 / 1993 provides that fair compensation must match the value of the property market. However, reality has shown that this idea of just compensation is marred by legal process of expropriation and often their final pays for a value much higher than the market, allowing for the overpriced severance. Using the approach as a method of dogmatic criticism, the study sought to identify the causes and how to form these overpriced severance be, and if this model established is constitutional or not. After discussing how society understands the land and what values attributed to him, stating that it is appropriate as well as production and capitalist accumulation, turned into a commodity, which is possible only because the owner individualism that shapes the right of ownership as an individual right subjective to use and enjoy the benefit of appropriate absolute and exclusive mode, which is a Brazilian agrarian question and a debate on agrarian reform as a measure of social justice without consensus emerging in rural areas, came to the conclusion that overpriced severance are formed in the course of judicial expropriation action, notably because of the classical liberal conception one has of right to property which leads to the imposition of accessory to the principal amount of the indemnity convictions as compensatory interest, arrears, payment of floristic coverage, inflation effects and attorney’s fees to the end of the process raise the compensation at a much higher market value threshold. The work is an analysis of the cum ended indemnity model adopted, that of just compensation, as regulated by market value, but which allows the formation of overpriced severance, arguing it is unconstitutional to deny effect to the principle of social function, the postulate of expropriation as a sanction for noncompliance and the principles of fair compensation and reasonableness. |
|---|
