Aspects of the health practice |
Disagreement of the author with respect to the acts practiced by the Health Surveillance |
Seizure of products, with prohibition of commercialization and/or disposal. |
Operation of another establishment licensed by Visa, but which, for the author, works in an irregular manner, compromising, moreover, its billing or causing economic losses. |
Prohibition of exposure and commercialization of products because they are divergent from the authorized activity. |
Withdrawal of anodyne drugs from internal shelves in establishments not authorized to market medicinal products. |
Interdiction of establishment and/or equipment. |
Prohibition of remote sale of drugs subject to special control. |
Excesses practiced by the professionals who carried out the inspection, characterizing abuse of power. |
Disagreement of the author with respect to the measures adopted by Visa in the situations |
Refusal of health licensing for the optometry segment. |
Refusal of the application for licensing because the establishment does not meet the minimum distancing (between drugstores and pharmacies) required by the Municipal Law nº 5.504/1999 (Art. 92). |
Non-acceptance of the technical person declared by the company because he has a formation that is different from that required by the Municipal Law nº 5.504/1999 (Art. 80). |
Performance of the Visa on the physical structure of the environment and health of the worker, which the author claims to be an extrapolation of the attributions of the body. |
Organizational aspects |
Alleges that there was delays in the Public Administration in complying with the permit application of the establishment |
After five months of the license application and after a formal request on the progress of the process, a statement was issued that the proceeding was in progress. |
Establishment for 12 months awaiting final opinion on the health licensing process. |
After 16 months, with successive issuances of notifications and extensions of term, the licensing process was not completed, but only issued statement that it is in process. |
After two months of the request for licensing without inspection and after successive attempts to obtain information about the progress of the process, he/she is informed that its object of demand was sent to the opinion of the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Municipality of Salvador (PGMS). |
Administrative or bureaucratic aspects |
The author alleges that there was a refusal to file a license application or the request was denied for lack of documents. |
Negative Certificate of Debits (CND). |
Certificate of Technical Responsibility (CRT). |
Proof of payment of the annuity of the company with the class council. |
Operating permit issued by the Treasury Office (Sefaz) of the municipality. |
Alleges that Visa does not have a formal and established mechanism for the resolution of conflicts or disputes within the administrative sphere. |
Absence of formal manifestation of the Visa, with the denial of the request verbally informed. |
Alleges omission of the Visa in attempts to clarify the progress of the licensing processes, as well as the conduct adopted. |
Report that Visa does not issue any document proving the denials of filing documents and/or requests. |
Administrative request filed, however, with no reply. |
Absence of an opinion that presents or not approval of the license application. |