Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2018 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Moraes, Rodrigo Jorge
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Nery Junior, Nelson |
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Estudos Pós-Graduados em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/21822
|
Resumo: |
The present study demonstrates the existence of a constitutional model of civil process expressly established by Code of Civil Procedure 2015, whose symbiosis between constitutional and procedural rules qualifies the evidence as a fundamental right of the party and is intended with priority and, in a reflexive way, process and the judge. Based on the theoretical bases laid down and based on the principles of the process in the Federal Constitution, we present what we call “probationary right”, a result of the binomial formed by the “right to prove” and the “right to prove” the parties. Therefore, the action of anticipated production of evidence is discussed with the new clothing received from the current code consisting of an autonomous and independent action, antecedent or incident, with or without the requirement of the requirement of urgency for its exercise in the individual process and in the collective process as an instrument to protect the environment in all its functions and objectives, such as knowledge of the facts for the adoption of procedural strategies, the perpetuation or guarantee of obtaining evidence, for the viability of self-composition or another means of conflict resolution, or even so that the evidence produced justifies or prevents the filing of a lawsuit |
