Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2023 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Silva, Núbia Roberta Sobral da
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Campos, Hélio Silvio Ourém |
| Banca de defesa: |
Mendonça, Jorge André de Carvalho,
Coutinho, João Hélio de Farias Moraes |
| 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: |
Departamento de Pós-Graduação
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
http://tede2.unicap.br:8080/handle/tede/1901
|
Resumo: |
Social Security plays a determining role in the maintenance of society, but despite this, the experience between the State, Social Security and beneficiaries is extremely conflictive. In postulatory actions for social security benefits, the legal interest under discussion – human dignity – is based on fundamental constitutional precepts and, therefore, must necessarily guarantee a fair legal order and due legal process. In this study, we analyze the possibility of making res judicata more flexible in Special Federal Courts, seeking to identify grounds that may justify the re-examination of a social security matter already protected by the authority of material res judicata. The study focuses on the scope of the Special Federal Courts, as they accumulate the vast majority of social security demands and, likewise, have a specific procedural rite, which prohibits the use of terminations and which, likewise, limits evidentiary instruction. The argumentative basis is based on the modern doctrine that defends the balance between the Principle of Legal Security, Due Process and Fair Process as a basis for the relativization of res judicata, bearing in mind that the immunizing effects of the latter cannot prosper in relation to actions in which the judicial pronouncement is riddled with injustice. The intention is not to trivialize the guarantee of legal security, but to demonstrate that no constitutional principle has an objective in itself, and that all of them, together, must serve as means to better guarantee a fair procedural system, once the search for a fair judicial protection is something that interests the whole society, hence the importance of thinking about jurisdiction beyond the subjective interests of the parties. |
