O exercício do contraditório pelos terceiros afetados no julgamento por amostragem de recursos repetitivos

• Ano de defesa: 2014
• Autor(a) principal: Miguel, Bruno Castello
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo; BR; Mestrado em Direito Processual; Centro de Ciências Jurídicas e Econômicas; UFES; Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito Processual
• Palavras-chave em Português: Repetitive appeals; Adversarial system; Judgment by random sampling; Reasonable length; Stare decisis; Superior courts; Third parties; Recursos repetitivos; Julgamento por amostragem; Razoável duração do processo; Precedentes; Tribunais de Superposição; Terceiros afetados; Recursos (Direito); Contraditório (Direito); Terceiros (Direito); Direito Processual Civil; 340
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.ufes.br/handle/10/2749

Study dedicated to the analysis of the judgment by random sampling of the “Repetitive Appeals” by the Superior Courts (section 543-B and 543-C of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code), in light of constitutional adversarial system, especially with regard to the participation of third parties affected by the lead ruling. The keynote of the last procedural law reform in Brazil converges in seeking to minimize harass caused due to delay of judgment protection by the Courts, thus to unclog Superior Courts, so that judicial proceedings shall bring more quick and effective solutions for litigants. It should however, be careful that this quest for speed does not violate the fundamental procedural safeguards in a democratic state governed by the Rule of Law. That said, this study focuses in equalizing the need for speediness of the lawsuit (reasonable length of the entire procedure) and the enforcement of law on a uniform basis (stare decisis), but not by overlooking the adversarial system and protection. On chapter one, the study analyzes the trend of vertical compliance of judgments (top-down enforcement of rulings as a stare decisis effect) and the role of Superior Courts towards rationalization of judicial activity and guarantee of equal rights. The study still faces the high lawsuit volume that overloads the Judiciary, alongside the growing number of cases, which combined generates a delayed judgment by Courts. On these premises, the second chapter seeks to identify the importance of the adversarial principle for the democratic rule of law and the need for participation of the affected third parties after a ruling is held on a lead judgment that will affect many other lawsuits on a set of Repetitive Appeals. After understanding the importance of the adversarial principle as a constitutional procedural safeguard, the study faces throughout the third chapter the details of trial by random sampling of Repetitive Appeals by the Superior Courts. In this chapter, there is a critical approach in order to demonstrate the need for participation of all disadvantaged third parties that were not parties in the lead lawsuit that led to the main judgment of the Repetitive Appeals but, yet, were bound by it.