The Justice of São Paulo rejected motions for clarification presented by the São Paulo Public Ministry to try to annul a decision favorable to São Paulo and the São Paulo Football Federation.
The MP had asked the club and federation to pay compensation of R$ 8 million for social damage that would have been caused by an accident that occurred in Morumbi on May 11, 2016. On that occasion, a grid broke and more than 30 fans fell from the lower ring of the stadium. São Paulo and Atlético-MG played for Libertadores on that date.
In May 2022, the Court had already considered the request unfounded. However, the MP presented the embargoes and suffered another defeat. Appeal in second instance.
In the embargoes, the Public Prosecutor’s Office claimed that there was, in the previous decision, an omission in relation to the points contested by him in the action.
When rejecting the embargoes, on the 26th, Judge Renato Acácio de Azevedo Borsanelli denied that there had been any omission.
For the magistrate, “in fact, the claim of the appellant is not the correction of any imperfection of the judgment, but its modification by the non-conformity with the result, an impossible possibility from the perspective of the aforementioned legal diploma”.
In another passage, the judge wrote that “embargoes for clarification do not lend themselves to the party asking the judge to decide the case again, with modification of the result of the demand, which will only be possible through the appropriate appeal.”
In a previous decision, the process was terminated without judgment on the merits. However, the Public Ministry appealed, and the sentence was annulled. Then, it was determined to carry out technical expertise. The expert report pointed out that the repairs made at the accident site were sufficient to remove risks to the safety of those who frequent the place.
In addition to compensation of a social nature for damages that would have been suffered by the community in general, MP had asked São Paulo and FPF to pay compensation for homogeneous individual damages caused to those who suffered a fall. However, in a decision of 2 May 2022, Judge Borsanelli considered that individual cases (less than ten, according to the sentence) were discussed separately in court between the club and the fans.
As informed a source heard by the column, in only one of them there was no agreement, following in court.
In the May decision, the magistrate understood that “there is no way to recognize relevant social damage in the present case, given the, repeat, small number of people objectively affected by what happened”. According to the sentence, there were 38 victims of the accident.
If there was payment of compensation for social damage (when there is injury to the collective well-being), the amount would go to the State Fund for the Defense of Diffuse Interests.