Antecipação da tutela relativa aos deveres de fazer e de não fazer (CPC, art. 461): um diálogo com as garantias constitucionais do processo

• Ano de defesa: 2011
• Autor(a) principal: Goron, Lívio Goellner
• Orientador(a): Porto, Sérgio Gilberto
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul; Porto Alegre
• Palavras-chave em Português: DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL; DIREITO CONSTITUCIONAL; TUTELA ANTECIPADA
• Link de acesso: http://hdl.handle.net/10923/2490

In a Constitucional State the civil procedure is construed according to the perspective of fundamental rights (guarantees), which are able to function as principles and possess an “irradiation efficacy”. The identification of a “principles procedural law” in the Constitucion is conceptually justifiable. The fundamental rights to effectiveness and safety, which remain under permanent tension in the procedure, can be divided into various procedural guarantees and find their accurate synthesis in the “due constitucional process”. The fundamental right to effective and proper legal protection is an appropriate methodological presupposition to explain the rapport beyween substantive and procedural law. The proporcionality criteria apply to all fundamental conflicts regarding the interpretation of procedural law. Cautionary measures and preliminary injunctions form a functional, sctructural and axiological unity. The late reform of the Brazilian civil procedure code (CPC) has broken the paradigms of the “ordinary procedure” and the lack of specificity in the legal protection of duties to perform a service. Article 461 of the CPC allows the system to receive an abstractive substancial protection, providing in return an effective procedural protection that is influenced by process values. The injunctions on articles 461 and 273 of CPC form an organic system and obbey a common legal pattern. A constitucional “reading” of the preliminary injunction procedure (article 461, c/w 273) should be adopted as a means to harmonize the basic demands of effectiveness and safety. The weighing of substantive interests and the evaluation of their constitutional relevance is part of the ruling on preliminary injuctions. As a rule, the defendant should be subpoenaed before a preliminary injunction is issued. The allowance to vary the protection issued in the process relativizes the principle of the court decision´s attachment to the the plaitiff´s initial request. In order to build a form of legal protection that is appropriate for the concrete case one should observe the proportionality criteria. The preliminary injunction should be carried out according to the “provisional enforcement” rules, and the respondent´s defense procedure must adapt to the complexity of the controversy.