O novo código de processo civil: cogitações sobre os principais aspectos positivos e negativos da estrutura técnico-sistemática do projeto aprovado no senado
This reflection intends to highlight the main positive and negative aspects of the technical structure and systematic design of the new Code of Civil Procedure approved by the Senate on 15.12.2012 (PL 8.046/2010). The theoretic line adopted for the theoretical analysis of the normative content of th...
Gorde:
| Egile nagusia: | |
|---|---|
| Formatua: | Artikulua |
| Hizkuntza: | Portugalera |
| Argitaratua: |
2013
|
| Gaiak: | |
| Sarrera elektronikoa: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=5402931 |
| Baliabidea: | Revista Electrónica Direito e Sociedade - REDES, ISSN 2318-8081, Vol. 1, Nº. 1, 2013, pags. 49-65 |
| Etiketak: |
Etiketa erantsi
Etiketarik gabe: Izan zaitez lehena erregistro honi etiketa jartzen
|
| Laburpena: |
This reflection intends to highlight the main positive and negative aspects of the technical structure and systematic design of the new Code of Civil Procedure approved by the Senate on 15.12.2012 (PL 8.046/2010). The theoretic line adopted for the theoretical analysis of the normative content of the project consists of an association between the structural and constitutional theories of the process with the guideposts Habermas’s proceduralism (Escola Mineira de Processo). It seeks to highlight the major gains of the new technical and theoretical systematization, concerned with the harmonization of procedural law with fundamental rights and guarantees provided in the Federal Constitution /1988 and the effective rights. It also examines the main aspects that are the subject of controversy and criticism in the new text as the search for speed at any cost, the overvaluation of the role of judges, encouraging the creative activity of the courts, the use of alternatives that limit conciliatory dialogue between the parties, limited resources, all in the desire to fight lengthy procedures; in addition to the obvious technical inconsistencies presentin some devices that still retain anti-democratic and authoritarian in its theoretical underpinnings. It appears finally that despite significant improvements, the approved text still retains instrumentalist conceptions of process related to the theory of the case as a legal relationship. |
|---|