The Federal Court of Auditors (TCU), for example, faced a similar situation in which a public agent acted as a service requester and, later, as an auctioneer. In this case, the TCU determined that there was “a lack of segregation of the auctioneer’s functions in his multiple roles of requesting the service/bid, preparing the terms of reference, estimating prices and preparing the notice, contrary to the case law of this Court (Judgments 2,829/2015, 3,381/2013 and 747/2013, of the Plenary, and 5,840/2012, of the 2nd Chamber)”1.
In order to avoid sanctions, the agency informed the TCU that the lack of segregation of functions was due to “a reduced staff, impossibility of admission by public examination, unavailability of external personnel, 'since this is an agency with a new regulatory structure', and designation by ordinances of the Ministry of Health of the functions of auctioneer email database australia and occasional substitute for the logistics sector to the same person”. The TCU understood that this scenario mitigated the irregularity and accepted the justification in light of the agency's allegations.
In line with this reasoning, it was found that the Court of Auditors did not impose a penalty on the Auctioneer for this action, since it would be an unreasonable and disproportionate measure. In this sense, the principle of proportionality, also known as the principle of prohibition of excess, should be the current baton of the Court of Auditors' decisions.
In this line, it can be seen that the Court of Auditors analyzes the case according to its respective peculiarities, taking into account all the data and information so that, by weighing them up, it can reach a fair, reasonable and proportional solution.
1 TCU. TC Proceedings No. 024.136/2016-6. Ruling No. 2.908/2016 – Plenary. Rapporteur: Minister Bruno Dantas.