A prova cível e o ato administrativo

• Ano de defesa: 2023
• Autor(a) principal: Felga, Caio Leão Câmara
• Orientador(a): Ferreira, William Santos
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• 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: Prova cível; Ato administrativo; Momentos da prova; Processo administrativo; Ônus da prova; Presunção de legitimidade; Veracidade do ato administrativo
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Civil evidence; Administrative act; Atages related to the proof; Administrative process; Burden of the proof; Presumption of regularity
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/39998

Producing an administrative act does not prevent it from being challenged in the administrative or judicial arena. In the latter case, the individual affected by the act typically raises a passive legal situation in the court, occupying the position of a taxpayer, insured party, public agent, etc. The public body, which typically took the administrative decision, becomes one of the parties in the judicial process, assuming the guarantees, burdens, duties, and powers like any other party. There are countless reasons why an administrative act can be the subject of discussion in a judicial process. However, if the act is challenged in its probative aspects, in general, the evidence produced in the judicial arena will have a lower ranking compared to that evidence already produced in the administrative sphere. This work aims to deepen the understanding of this scenario, focusing specifically on the interrelation between the material and procedural aspects of the administrative act's proof in the civil trial environment. To achieve its objective, first, the study clarifies the structure of the work, presenting its objectives, limits of investigation, sources, the process by which the research intends to extract knowledge, and the dogmatic nature of the research. Next, it addresses the relevance of examining the interrelation between the material and procedural aspects, as well as the discourse on the evidence adopted in the study. From there, the work seeks to deepen certain stages related to the proof that are essential to the understanding of both administrative and judicial processes. The study then advances to deepen the understanding of the administrative process, particularly regarding its probative aspects. Finally, it delves into the judicial process, discussing the legal nature of the evidence produced in the administrative process in the judicial process; the existence or absence of procedural prerogatives of the public treasury in probative matters; unilateral evidence produced by public bodies and the administrative act; the production of evidence by the administration in the judicial process; the burden of proof and the administrative act; technical discretion and expert evidence; the agent's motive and the proof of subjective states; proof of local abstract administrative acts; proof and administrative acts in specific procedures; and finally, the repercussion of civil evidence in the administrative process