Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2011 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Acioli, José Adelmy da Silva
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Araújo, Marcelo Labanca Corrêa de
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Esteves, Juliana Teixeira
|
| Tipo de documento: |
Dissertação
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Universidade Católica de Pernambuco
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Mestrado em Direito
|
| Departamento: |
Direito
|
| País: |
BR
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede2.unicap.br:8080/handle/tede/471
|
Resumo: |
It aims to demonstrate that the prision s civilian judicial depositary infidel remains possible in Brazil, even with the ratification of the American Convention on Human Rights 1969. The aim is to study the legal nature of each type of deposit and, from this theoretical framework, to assess the hypothesis that the depositary has no legal contractual nature, but of public law, not getting involved with running the debt, nor with no other element of private law, the burden may fall on the lender itself or on the third. In this sense, the prison's legal depository for debt would not be unfaithful, but as a result of contempt revealed the breach of the procedural costs of public law respectively taken before the judge of performance and are not covered by the ban established by that international standard . On the other hand, analyzes the conflict between fundamental rights involving individual liberty and the guarantees of access to justice and effective judicial protection, concluding that the old criteria of hermeneutic solution of antinomies are insufficient to examine the question, but be given a proper constitutional interpretation in each case with footstool on the principle of proportionality. Be seen, too, hermeneutics and linguistically, the legislative reference and each of the judicial precedent of stare decisis n. 25 of the Brazilian Supreme Court, verifying that the conflict was apparent only in the jurisprudential core of the confrontation between the rights of liberty and property, muddying up the investigative eye on the tension that decision scoresheet, as drafted, gives rise to comes to guaranteeing access to justice and effective judicial protection. Thus, we conclude that no binding precedent n. 25 needs to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and until that happens, it is necessary that an interpretation suited to its constitutional drafting in order to restrict their destination only to depository contract, not reaching the legal custodians |
