The forms of resolution are the part in which the climax is reached in a trial, article 49 of the LFPCA sets out the existing terms to resolve the matter, dictate the sentence and how long the investigating magistrate will have to deliver the project.
To formulate the sentence, the Magistrate must present the project to the other magistrates and they must approve it. In this way, the process has the appropriate filters so that not only the will of one magistrate is reflected and what is decided is as fair as possible. In addition, there are other mechanisms for the magistrate to responsibly fulfill his obligations, such as the justice incentive, with which the actor can complain to the president of the court about the slow resolution of the trial. In addition, the individual has resources such as claims and review to defend themselves against those resolutions or agreements that are issued during the procedure (dismissal of the claim, precautionary measures, etc.) and that harm them because they are contrary to the law.[8].
The sentence will be pronounced by unanimity or a majority vote of the magistrates who are members of the Chamber within 60 days following the day in which the agreement to close the investigation is issued in the trial, the investigating magistrate will have 45 days to formulate and present his project, these 45 days forming part of the 60 days established once the agreement to close the investigation has been dictated if the project was not accepted by the other magistrates of the Plenary, Section or Chamber, The reporting magistrate or instructor will add to the ruling with the arguments of the majority and the project may cast a dissenting vote, as stated in article 49 of the LFPCA. To issue a resolution in cases of dismissal for any of the reasons provided above, it will not be necessary for the investigation to have been closed.[8].
The sentences will be presented, as well as the foundation and motivation they will have, always under law and in claim to the actor, if there are some aspects of illegality, the Chamber's sentence must first examine those that may lead to declaring outright nullity. In the event that the ruling declares the nullity of a resolution due to the omission of the formal requirements required by law, or due to procedural defects, it must indicate how they affected the defenses of the individual and transcended the meaning of the resolution.[8].
The Chambers may correct the errors they find in the precepts that are considered violated and examine as a whole the grievances and causes of illegality, as well as the other reasoning of the parties, in order to resolve the issue actually raised, but without changing the facts presented in the application and in the answer.
In the case of rulings that resolve on the legality of the resolution issued in an administrative appeal, if there are sufficient elements to do so, the Court will rule on the legality of the appealed resolution, in the part that did not satisfy the legal interest of the plaintiff. Acts of the administrative authorities not expressly challenged in the lawsuit cannot be annulled or modified.[8].
In the case of sentences in which the authority is sentenced to the restitution of a violated subjective right or the return of an amount, the Court must previously verify the right that the individual has, in addition to the illegality of the contested resolution.[8].
The Agents of the Public Ministry, the Experts and the Members of the Police Institutions of the Federation, who have promoted the trial or means of defense in which the jurisdictional authority resolves that the separation, removal, discharge, dismissal, dismissal or any other form of termination of service was unjustified; The defendant authority will only be obliged to pay the compensation and other benefits to which they are entitled, without in any case reinstatement to service as mentioned in section XIII, section B, of article 123 of the Constitution.[8][12].
Regarding the elements that the sentences handed down by the Federal Court of Administrative Justice must contain due to the Federal Law of State Patrimonial Responsibility in its article 50, it can be summarized as:[13].
Now, article 51 of the same law mentioned in the previous paragraph mentions that an administrative resolution is illegal when there are cases such as: Incompetence of the official, omission of formal requirements, procedural defects, the facts that motivated the demand were not carried out and that the administrative resolution does not correspond to the purposes.[13].
The final ruling may, according to article 52 of the same law, declare the nullity of the resolution, recognize a subjective right, restore the enjoyment of rights, declare the nullity of the act to cease its effects, declare the existence of a subjective right and the payment of compensation.[13].
The final ruling is final according to article 53 of the same law when it does not admit an appeal or trial against it, if it admits an appeal or trial, it was not contested and otherwise, the appeal or trial has been rejected and is also expressly consented to by the parties.[13] For the clarification of any part that may be considered contradictory, ambiguous or obscure, ten days will be counted after the notification and the clarification that will be requested must be precisely indicated.
According to article 55 of the LFRPE, the request for justice may be formulated before the president of the Court, if the responsible Magistrate does not formulate the respective project within the deadline; The petition for justice is practically a complaint that is presented to the superior hierarchical authority in such a way that the attention of the Magistrate is drawn. Article 56 mentions that once the petition for justice is received, the president will request a report from the Magistrate, which must be presented in five days. The Magistrate will then be informed that he has fifteen days to present the project, as long as the petition has the grounds to proceed.[13]
There are four fundamental parts of a sentence as Manuel Lucero Espinosa points out in his book "Theory and practice of administrative litigation before the fiscal court of the federation", an idea that he takes from Cipriano Gómez Lara; These four parts are: preamble, results, recitals and resolutions.
Preamble, is the part of the sentence where the date is, the place must be indicated, as well as the names of the parties and the type of process that is being proposed in the sentence. The results are where the history, details and background are presented, as well as where the evidence that was used during the matter is stated. The recitals are where the conclusions and opinions of the Court are presented, as well as the confrontation between the claims and resistances. Finally, the resolutions are where the final part goes, where it is specified in a very concrete way whether the meaning of the resolution is favorable or not.[14].