Name: PEDRO MACHADO TAVARES

Publication date: 11/12/2019
Advisor:

Name	Role
CLÁUDIO IANNOTTI DA ROCHA	Advisor *
HERMES ZANETI JUNIOR	Co-advisor *

Examining board:

Name	Role
CLÁUDIO IANNOTTI DA ROCHA	Advisor *
THIAGO FERREIRA SIQUEIRA	Internal Examiner *
TRÍCIA NAVARRO XAVIER CABRAL	Internal Examiner *

Summary: The validity of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code (Law No. 13.105 / 2015) reformulates the way of operating Brazilian civil procedural law, bringing a great and new paradigmatic revolution to the Tupiniquim procedural system, namely: institution of a model of judicial precedents formally binding norms, this being the elementary point of the present work. In fact, Article 927 of the new CPC lists the statements and decisions that constitute judicial provisions that are binding and binding on all the country's courts, while several other normative precepts throughout the procedural text create institutes and techniques of normative applicability. that are compatible with this new way of litigating and deciding cases submitted to the Brazilian judicial review. In this context, this eminently legal work aims to present the new model of binding judicial precedents, besides revealing its main procedural techniques of applicability in the light of the evidence of the law and unveiling problems related to its validation and operability in the system, indicating legal solutions. able to resolve inconsistencies detected for the full and coherent implementation of the new model created. In fact, the literal interpretation of the rules governing the procedural techniques which apply the preceding rules at various procedural times, from the beginning to the end of the procedure, and even after their res judicata, as evidence of protection, injunction dismissal, necessary remittance, monocratic decision of merit in appellate degree and conflict of competence given by rapporteur, waiver of bail in provisional compliance with judgment, termination action, claim, embargoes of declaration and special and extraordinary appeals, leads to the understanding that such techniques can only be used if the precedent rule that the technique aims to apply is staggered in its respective list, which does not have coherence with that established in the main article that establishes the necessity of obligatory observance of the precedents, reason why it becomes imperative research on such a problem in order to to submit a proposal that implements the unity of law.
KEYWORDS: CPC / 2015. Judicial Precedents. Procedural Techniques. Coherence. Integrity.

Access to document