Incidente de resolução de demandas repetitivas

• Ano de defesa: 2022
• Autor(a) principal: Siviero, Flávio Henrique
• Orientador(a): Aurelli, Arlete Inês
• 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: Direito processual civil; Precedente judicial; Incidente de resolução de demandas repetitivas; Direitos individuais homogêneos; Competência; Juizados especiais
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Civil procedure; Judicial precedent; Incidente de resolução de demandas repetitivas; Homogeneous individual rights; Competence; Small claims courts
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/30828

This paper analyses the “incidente de resolução de demandas repetitivas” (IRDR) created by the Civil Procedure Code of 2015. In order to reach an appropriate dogmatics for the appreciation of the aforementioned procedural technique, the present academic work makes a brief incursion into the definition of judicial precedent and presents an overview of the other procedural instruments aimed at the creation of mandatory precedent in Brazilian law to then proceed to a in-depth study of the IRDR. In the end, the paper points out the similarities and differences of repetitive demands and homogeneous individual rights, analyzes the constitutionality of the expansion of the competence of the Courts resulting from the creation of an procedural incident that must be originally appreciated by them and seeks to answer the main controversies involving IRDR and small claims courts, notably if an IRDR can be filed before the second-degree body of the small claims courts, if a process in progress in the small claims court can trigger an IRDR and whether it is possible to file a complaint to the Court that judged the IRDR in case of non-compliance with the thesis signed by it in a process that is being processed before the small claims court