Adversarial principle in the civil procedure of Czechoslovakia and later the Czech Republic throughout the 20th century: an analysis Abstract The aim of thesis is to analyse the adversarial principle in the civil procedure of Czechoslovakia and later the Czech Republic. The hypothesis states that there were three different time periods, each with its unique look at adversarial principle, which the later interpretation of courts and authors maintained. First, I challenge this hypothesis with respect to authors and courts continuing in the footsteps of creators. After that I search for any common ground between all of the concepts. Both topics are examined with respect to how the facts of the case were collected and to whether the court was obliged to follow cause of action pursued by the parties. Based on the analysis of literature and case-law from 1918 to present the conclusions are following: With respect to how the facts of the case were collected, majority of literature and case- law published in the first part of communist regime replaced the adversarial principle by the inquisitorial principle, giving precedence to the activity of court instead of rejecting the claimant's action on the basis of lack of facts presented. The situation changed in literature in the second part of the communist regime,...

A presente tese de doutorado tem por objetivo demonstrar que a atividade probatória conduzida pelo Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica - CADE, nos processos administrativos de investigação de cartéis, apresenta deficiências e demanda aperfeiçoamento. Para comprovação da tese, foi revisada a jurisprudência do órgão em um período de 15 anos (1999-2014), identificando-se as características e os procedimentos relacionados a essa que é a mais importante etapa dos processos sancionadores: a reconstrução histórica dos fatos controversos. No primeiro capítulo, são examinados o poder de polícia do CADE, suas formas de manifestação, a infração de cartel, a estrutura da autoridade, os tipos de processo, as penalidades e os poderes de investigação. No segundo capítulo, a abordagem recai sobre o objeto, os meios, os modos de obtenção e os momentos da prova. No terceiro capítulo, são identificados os fatores que causam deficiências à atividade probatória à luz do contraditório e da paridade de armas, princípios que devem nortear o exercício da função administrativa. Com base nesse diagnóstico, as notas conclusivas apresentam propostas de aprimoramento da atuação do CADE no campo probatório, que podem contribuir para a tomada de decisões mais céleres, robustas e legítimas. / This doctoral thesis aims at demonstrating that the evidentiary activity conducted by the Administrative Council for Economic Defense - CADE, in cartel investigation administrative proceedings, presents deficiencies and requires improvement. For this purpose, CADEs case law for the past 15 years (1999-2014) has been reviewed to identify the characteristics and proceedings related to this stage of the sanctioning process, which is the most important one: the historical reconstruction of the disputed facts. In the first chapter, the following items are discussed: CADEs police power and how it is exercised, cartel violations, authority structure, types of proceedings, penalties, and powers of investigation. In the second chapter, the focus is on the evidence object and phases, means of evidence and means of gathering evidence. In the third chapter, the factors that cause deficiencies to the evidentiary activity are reviewed in light of the adversarial and equality of arms principles that must guide the fulfillment of the administrative function. Based on this diagnosis, the conclusions present proposals to improve CADEs operations in the evidentiary field, which may contribute to render the decision-making process more expedite, solid, and legitimate.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:24:10Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Jorge Luiz Reis Fernandes.pdf: 852990 bytes, checksum: 6905aa1dfe945cd7cfdf9a3b8a8aff16 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-16 / The thesis aims to reveal the meaning of a cooperatively structured legal process, which involves in theory a substantive decision within a reasonable time that is fair and effective. The paper presents that the scope of this desideratum, to obtain an adequate decision, undergoes a process in which the parties are symmetrical in the proceedings, effectively influencing the decisions taken by the magistrate, who will only be isolated from the parties at the time of the ruling and not at the construction of the proceedings. It starts from a publicist ideal, from a democratic model of process forged through extensive dialogue between the parties and the magistrate, and the resulting dialecticism promotes a genuine contradictory, changing the design of the aphorisms mihi factum dabo tibi ius and iura novit curia, because everyone should contribute to the social peace, with no surprises. The collaboration between the parties brings duties for all parties with no exception, but the most important role belongs to the magistrate, which entails clarification duties, prevention, dialogue and aid. The parties serve diverse interests and contribute little, especially since there is a gap between them, which is exactly the reason of the litigation, including the right against self-incrimination principle. However, they cooperate with the duty of good faith. The study also faces another problem, which is the question of whether or not cooperation is a principle, not as predominant orientation, but as normative species. Finally, for the formation of a cooperative and democratic process, everyone should conduct the process as a working community / A presente dissertação tem como propósito desvelar o significado de um processo estruturado cooperativamente, o que, em tese, implica decisão de mérito em tempo razoável, que seja justa e efetiva. O trabalho expõe que o alcance desse desiderato, para a obtenção de uma decisão adequada, passa por um processo em que as partes são simétricas na condução do processo e influenciam efetivamente nas decisões tomadas pelo magistrado, para que este seja isolado somente no momento em que proferir a decisão, e não na sua construção. Parte de um ideal publicista, de um modelo processual democrático forjado através do amplo diálogo entre as partes e o juiz, e essa dialeticidade promove um contraditório genuíno, mudando a concepção dos aforismos mihi factum dabo tibi ius e iura novit curia, pois todos devem contribuir para que seja atingida a pacificação social, sem surpresas. A colaboração entre os sujeitos correspondem deveres para todos, sem exceção, mas o juiz exerce o papel mais importante, haja vista que possui deveres de esclarecimento, prevenção, diálogo e auxílio. As partes atendem a interesses diversos e pouco contribuem, sobretudo porque há um hiato entre elas, que é exatamente a razão da litigiosidade, inclusive não podem se autoincriminar. No entanto, elas cooperam com o dever de boa-fé. O trabalho também enfrenta outra problemática, que é definir se cooperação é ou não um princípio, não como orientação preponderante, mas como espécie normativa. Por fim, para a conformação de um processo cooperativo e democrático, todos devem conduzir o processo como uma comunidade de trabalho

A presente tese de doutorado tem por objetivo demonstrar que a atividade probatória conduzida pelo Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica - CADE, nos processos administrativos de investigação de cartéis, apresenta deficiências e demanda aperfeiçoamento. Para comprovação da tese, foi revisada a jurisprudência do órgão em um período de 15 anos (1999-2014), identificando-se as características e os procedimentos relacionados a essa que é a mais importante etapa dos processos sancionadores: a reconstrução histórica dos fatos controversos. No primeiro capítulo, são examinados o poder de polícia do CADE, suas formas de manifestação, a infração de cartel, a estrutura da autoridade, os tipos de processo, as penalidades e os poderes de investigação. No segundo capítulo, a abordagem recai sobre o objeto, os meios, os modos de obtenção e os momentos da prova. No terceiro capítulo, são identificados os fatores que causam deficiências à atividade probatória à luz do contraditório e da paridade de armas, princípios que devem nortear o exercício da função administrativa. Com base nesse diagnóstico, as notas conclusivas apresentam propostas de aprimoramento da atuação do CADE no campo probatório, que podem contribuir para a tomada de decisões mais céleres, robustas e legítimas. / This doctoral thesis aims at demonstrating that the evidentiary activity conducted by the Administrative Council for Economic Defense - CADE, in cartel investigation administrative proceedings, presents deficiencies and requires improvement. For this purpose, CADEs case law for the past 15 years (1999-2014) has been reviewed to identify the characteristics and proceedings related to this stage of the sanctioning process, which is the most important one: the historical reconstruction of the disputed facts. In the first chapter, the following items are discussed: CADEs police power and how it is exercised, cartel violations, authority structure, types of proceedings, penalties, and powers of investigation. In the second chapter, the focus is on the evidence object and phases, means of evidence and means of gathering evidence. In the third chapter, the factors that cause deficiencies to the evidentiary activity are reviewed in light of the adversarial and equality of arms principles that must guide the fulfillment of the administrative function. Based on this diagnosis, the conclusions present proposals to improve CADEs operations in the evidentiary field, which may contribute to render the decision-making process more expedite, solid, and legitimate.

La loyauté procédurale n’est pas consacrée dans le droit du procès administratif. Elle fait pourtant l’objet d’un débat au sein de la doctrine publiciste. Alors que la jurisprudence judiciaire et la doctrine privatiste font de la loyauté des débats essentiellement un enjeu de moralisation du procès entre les parties, le discours de la doctrine publiciste sur la loyauté vise à révéler et justifier les garanties apportées aux parties dans le procès administratif. Une démarche inductive, consistant à systématiser le discours doctrinal, permet de formuler un concept de loyauté procédurale propre au procès administratif. Celui-ci apporte une justification à certains traits de procédure, consacrés par les textes ou la jurisprudence, qui n’ont pas de fondement exprès et dont le point commun est de reconnaître des garanties aux parties. Ce concept offre une grille d’analyse du droit du procès. La circonstance que le principe de loyauté procédurale est rejeté en droit n’exclut pas, en outre, l’intérêt d’un usage conceptuel de la loyauté. Le concept de loyauté permet d’apprécier l’opportunité de consacrer certains mécanismes contentieux et d’identifier les difficultés posées par le procès administratif selon les critères de l’intégrité, de l’accessibilité et de l’efficacité à l’égard des parties. Envisagée comme un concept d’explication, la loyauté procédurale devient un concept d’analyse de la procédure suivie devant le juge administratif et suggère certaines évolutions des règles applicables au procès administratif. / The concept of procedural loyalty is not enshrined in the legal frameworks that govern administrative legal proceedings. Nonetheless, it has been subject to significant debate throughout the administrative legal doctrine. In contrast to judicial case law and civil doctrine where the concept of loyalty of debates is essentially focused on the moralization between the parties involved, the administrative doctrine on loyalty aims to disclose and justify the guaranties and safeguards given to the parties involved. An inductive approach, consistent in systematizing the doctrinal discourse, has lead to a concept of procedural loyalty that is unique to administrative legal proceedings. It provides justification over the key features of legal proceedings, features that are enshrined in either legal texts or case law but do not have explicit legal foundations and for which the common feature is to recognize safeguards afforded to the parties involved. This concept brings about a new set of legal terminology. The fact that the principal of procedural loyalty is not explicitly covered in legal frameworks, does not mean however that the conceptual usage of loyalty should be discarded. This concept allows us to acknowledge the opportunity in devoting litigation mechanisms to administrative legal proceedings, in order to identify the difficulties brought about in respect of the integrity, accessibility and efficiency with regards to all parties involved. Initially envisaged as an explanatory concept, procedural loyalty has been transformed into a conceptual analysis of the proceedings presided over by administrative judges.

Darbe keliama hipotezė – procesinė taisyklė, leidžianti apylinkių teismams nagrinėjant administracinių teisės pažeidimų bylas, savo iniciatyva neribotai rinkti įrodymus, pažeidžia proceso šalių lygiateisiškumo ir rungimosi principus. Siekiant patvirtinti hipotezę, yra pasirinkta trijų dalių darbo struktūra. Pirmojoje dalyje aptarta administracinių teisės pažeidimų bylų teisena, administracinės atsakomybės samprata ir organai (pareigūnai) įgalioti nagrinėti administracinių teisės pažeidimų bylas. Antroje dalyje analizuojama rungimosi ir lygiateisiškumo principų samprata, jų veikimas administracinių teisės pažeidimų teisenoje. Paskutinėje dalyje įvertinamas teisėjo vaidmuo administracinių teisės pažeidimų teisenoje, lyginama su užsienio šalių teisinėmis sistemomis Atlikus mokslinės teisinės literatūros, įstatymų analizę bei išanalizavus bendros kompetencijos teismo vaidmenį nagrinėjant administracinių teisės pažeidimų bylas, galima daryti išvadą, kad teisėjas rinkdamas įrodymus pažeidžia rungimosi ir proceso šalių lygiateisiškumo principus. Darbe keliama hipotezė pasitvirtino. / The paper proposes a hypothesis – the procedural rule that enables district courts to collect evidence while hearing the cases of administrative law offences at their own initiative without any limitations violates the principle of equal rights of the dispute parties and the adversarial principle. In order to support the hypothesis, a three-part structure of the paper has been chosen. The first part discusses administrative legal proceedings, the concept of administrative liability and the bodies (officers) authorized to hear the cases of administrative law offences. The second part analyzes the concept of the adversarial principle and the principle of equal rights, their application in administrative legal proceedings. The final part evaluates the role of a judge in administrative legal proceedings and provides a comparison with foreign legal systems. The analysis of scientific legal literature, laws, the role of the court of general competence and the case-law on administrative law offences permits to jump into conclusion that by collecting evidence in administrative cases without limitations, the judge violates the adversarial principle and the principle of equal rights of the parties in the proceedings. The proposed hypothesis has been supported.

O presente trabalho tem por escopo o estudo dos deveres de lealdade e cooperação intersubjetiva no direito processual civil brasileiro. Para tanto, parte-se do estudo do Processo Civil Constitucional, investigando temas como neoconstitucionalismo, neoprocessualismo e a teoria do diálogo das fontes como critério de aplicação do direito. Com esta análise, serão verificadas as opiniões de muitos teóricos acerca do conceito e do papel desempenhado pelos princípios, sobrelevando a importância do estudo dos princípios constitucionais aplicáveis ao processo, além de buscar uma breve distinção entre princípios e cláusulas gerais. Também se faz uma ponderação sobre o estudo da ideologia no processo, analisando as críticas e as respostas àqueles que entendem o dever de cooperação como traço autoritário do processo civil, além de trazer as advertências quanto ao uso excessivo dos institutos, e analisar os mecanismos de controle de aplicação. O trabalho ainda versa sobre a evolução conceitual do princípio do contraditório, e a sua correlação com o dever de cooperação, assim como sugere como premissas de aplicação adequada a boa-fé objetiva e a teoria do abuso do direito. O texto também analisa a natureza jurídica da cooperação processual, se ônus ou dever, para em seguida investigar a aplicação em relação aos sujeitos processuais, notadamente, as partes, seus procuradores e o juiz. Na última parte do seu desenvolvimento, a pesquisa passa a verificar a correlação entre os deveres de cooperação, lealdade e boa-fé processual perante o abuso do direito de ação, o abuso do direito de defesa, o dever de veracidade, a litigância de má-fé, o procedimento e a possibilidade de flexibilização, em matéria probatória (verificando, inclusive, quanto à flexibilização das regras de ônus da prova), as questões cognoscíveis de ofício (em especial, o conhecimento oficioso da prescrição), nos recursos e na fase de cumprimento de sentença e no processo execução. Por derradeiro, buscam-se algumas outras aplicações exemplificativas em searas específicas do processo civil brasileiro. / The scope of the present work is to study the loyalty and intersubjective cooperation in the brazilian civil procedural law. Therefore, it starts from the Constitucional Civil Process conception, investigating matters as neoconstitutionalism, neoprocessualism and the theory of dialogue of sources as law application criterion. With this analysis, will be checked the views of many theorists about the concept and role of principles, stressing the importance of the study of constitutional principles applicable to the process, in addition to seeking a brief distinction between principles and general clauses. It also considers the study of the procedural ideology, by analyzing the criticsms and the response to those who understand the duty of cooperation as an authoritarian trace of civil procedural law, besides to warn about the \"overuse\" of institutions and to analyze control mechanisms application. The work also deals with the conceptual evolution of the adversarial principle, and its correlation with the duty of cooperation, as well as suggests objective good faith and the abuse of rights theories as premises of its correct application. The text also examines the legal nature of cooperation procedure, if it is a burden or a duty, to then investigate the application in relation to procedural subjects, notably the parties, their attorneys and the judge. In the last part of the research´s development, it shall verify the correlation between the duties of cooperation, loyalty, and procedural good faith in face to the abuse of the right to sue, abuse of the right of defense, the duty of truthfulness, litigation in bad faith, the proceedings and its flexibilization, proof matters (checking, also, the relaxation of the rules regarding the burden of proof), the issues that can be decided by the judge without requirement (especially, the prescription), appealing and phase of sentence enforcement and execution process. For the last, the survey seeks up some other exemplificative applications in specific areas of Brazilian civil procedural law.

En 2000, le Chili a promulgué un nouveau Code de procédure pénale qui a bouleversé les fondements de l’ancienne procédure. Cette réforme s’est appuyée sur l’idée d’une rupture totale avec la législation antérieure en faisant graviter la procédure autour de la notion clé de débat contradictoire. L’émergence de ce principe a été obtenue grâce à une répartition innovante des rôles entre les différents protagonistes du procès, notamment avec la réapparition du Ministère Public en première instance. Afin d’innerver l’ensemble du procès, le débat contradictoire se réalise à toutes les étapes de la procédure et permet d’aboutir à une décision judiciaire qui puise sa légitimité dans la participation active des parties aux débats. Toutefois, ce débat contradictoire ne peut acquérir sa pleine dimension et son effectivité maximale que grâce à l’institution de mécanismes particuliers. Ainsi, la prévention des atteintes au contradictoire est assurée par la refonte du statut des protagonistes du procès et par l’obligation du juge de motiver ses décisions. Enfin, ce sont les voies de recours qui ont été modifiées et repensées afin d’assurer l’effectivité du principe du contradictoire. Grâce à ce mouvement, le Chili a effectué une véritable révolution juridique parachevant ainsi sa transition vers la démocratie. / In 2000, Chili promulgated a new Code of criminal procedure that deeply shook the foundations of the previous procedure. This reform is based on the idea of a complete change from the former legislation by having criminal procedure rotate around the key concept of adversarial debate. The development of this principle was allowed thanks to the innovative distribution of the tasks bearing on those involved in the trial, such as the appearance of the Public Prosecutor who has recovered his function of criminal prosecution, which had been so far handled by the judge. In order to affect the whole trial, the adversarial principle carries out its effects at every stage of the proceedings. It leads to a ruling that grounds its legitimacy in the active participation of the parties in the proceedings. Consequently, the law of evidence was modified and the legal hierarchy of evidence gave way to the principle of free assessment of evidence. Yet, the adversarial debate can only develop and be effective through the setting up of specific mechanisms. Therefore, a reworking of the status of the actors of the criminal proceedings has been designed to prevent any breach of the adversarial principle. Regarding the possible breaches of the adversarial principle by the judge, these are prevented by the obligation bearing on the judge to give grounds for his rulings, as well as the modification of his status. Finally, the judicial remedies were modified and rethought in order to ensure the efficiency of the adversarial principle. Thanks to this reform, Chile made a real legal revolution, thereby completing its transition to democracy.

L’universalisme des droits a fait accéder au concept des droits de la défense des diversités procédurales. Au niveau de chaque pays, qu’il soit petit ou grand, quelle que soit sa culture, il est accepté et officiel qu’on ne peut juger sans se référer aux règles fondamentales, et sans se faire assister par un avocat. Les droits à la défense sont garantis en Mauritanie par la loi n° 2007-036 portant approbation d'un Code de Procédure Pénale, la loi n° 2007- 012 portant l'Organisation Judiciaire et la loi n° 99-035 portant code de Procédure Civile Commerciale et Administrative. Les règles des droits de la défense ne peuvent être atteintes sans la mise en place d’organes qui encadrent les dispositions de celle-ci. L’égalité devant la Justice est expressément considérée de droit fondamental dans la constitution du 20 juillet 1991. Cependant, le principe n'ait aucune portée réelle malgré la précision du texte. Ce qui paraît absurde avec notre modèle de système de « droit ineffectif », implique, que les règles du procès équitable ne sont pas affectées de manière égalitaire à tous. Ce n’est pas la seule difficulté ou ambigüité. La présente étude soutient, d’une part, que l’exercice des principes du contradictoire et de l’égalité des armes garantit l’effectivité des droits de la défense, et d’autre part, que le développement des principes participe à un renouveau des droits. La position contemporaine des droits de la défense emploie cette notion, démontrant souvent les droits de la défense comme une implication supérieure et d’une évidence logique de la procédure, obéissant donc aux critères fondamentaux du droit à un procès équitable. Il se détermine par toute une série de procédures menées dans un procès et se déclare, aujourd’hui, sous un ensemble de bases juridiques protégeant les droits de la défense. Pour ce faire nous avons essayé de faire un travail d’évaluation sociologique sans prétention de scientificité parfaite. Evitant tout juridisme ou positivisme, le travail reste néanmoins à dominance juridique. / Universalism of the rights have come the concept the rights of the defenses diversity of procedural. A the level of each country, however big or small, whatever is its culture, he (It) is accepted and official that we cannot judge without referring to the fundamental rules (rulers), and without being attended by a lawyer. Rights of defence are guaranteed in Mauritanie by the law number 2007-036 carrying Code of criminal procedure, the law number 2007-012 carrying the judicial organization, the law number 99–035 carrying Code of civil procedure, commercial and administrative. The rules of rights of defence not wind not to be reached without the implementation of organs which frame the capacities of this one. The equality before the courts is expressly considered by fundamental law in the of the constitution owed July 20th, 1991. However, the principle is of no real reach in spite of the precision of the text. What seems absurd with our model of system of ineffective right, imply that the rules of the fair trial are not allocated in a egalitarian way to all. It is not the only difficulty or the ambiguity. The present study supports on one hand that the exercice of the equality of the contradictory and the equality of weapons guarantees the effectiveness of rights of defence, and on the other hand, that the development of the principles participates in a revival oo the rights.The contemporary position of rights of defence uses this notion demonstrating, often rights of defence as a superior implication and of a logical obvious fact of the procedure, thus obeying the fundamental criteria of the right to fair trial. He is determined by a whole series of procedures led in a trial and declares itself, today, under a set of legal bases protecting rights of defence. To this end we had tried to make a work of unpretentious sociological evaluation of perfect scientificity. Avoiding any legalism or positivism, the work stays nevertheless in legal dominance.

O presente trabalho tem por escopo o estudo dos deveres de lealdade e cooperação intersubjetiva no direito processual civil brasileiro. Para tanto, parte-se do estudo do Processo Civil Constitucional, investigando temas como neoconstitucionalismo, neoprocessualismo e a teoria do diálogo das fontes como critério de aplicação do direito. Com esta análise, serão verificadas as opiniões de muitos teóricos acerca do conceito e do papel desempenhado pelos princípios, sobrelevando a importância do estudo dos princípios constitucionais aplicáveis ao processo, além de buscar uma breve distinção entre princípios e cláusulas gerais. Também se faz uma ponderação sobre o estudo da ideologia no processo, analisando as críticas e as respostas àqueles que entendem o dever de cooperação como traço autoritário do processo civil, além de trazer as advertências quanto ao uso excessivo dos institutos, e analisar os mecanismos de controle de aplicação. O trabalho ainda versa sobre a evolução conceitual do princípio do contraditório, e a sua correlação com o dever de cooperação, assim como sugere como premissas de aplicação adequada a boa-fé objetiva e a teoria do abuso do direito. O texto também analisa a natureza jurídica da cooperação processual, se ônus ou dever, para em seguida investigar a aplicação em relação aos sujeitos processuais, notadamente, as partes, seus procuradores e o juiz. Na última parte do seu desenvolvimento, a pesquisa passa a verificar a correlação entre os deveres de cooperação, lealdade e boa-fé processual perante o abuso do direito de ação, o abuso do direito de defesa, o dever de veracidade, a litigância de má-fé, o procedimento e a possibilidade de flexibilização, em matéria probatória (verificando, inclusive, quanto à flexibilização das regras de ônus da prova), as questões cognoscíveis de ofício (em especial, o conhecimento oficioso da prescrição), nos recursos e na fase de cumprimento de sentença e no processo execução. Por derradeiro, buscam-se algumas outras aplicações exemplificativas em searas específicas do processo civil brasileiro. / The scope of the present work is to study the loyalty and intersubjective cooperation in the brazilian civil procedural law. Therefore, it starts from the Constitucional Civil Process conception, investigating matters as neoconstitutionalism, neoprocessualism and the theory of dialogue of sources as law application criterion. With this analysis, will be checked the views of many theorists about the concept and role of principles, stressing the importance of the study of constitutional principles applicable to the process, in addition to seeking a brief distinction between principles and general clauses. It also considers the study of the procedural ideology, by analyzing the criticsms and the response to those who understand the duty of cooperation as an authoritarian trace of civil procedural law, besides to warn about the \"overuse\" of institutions and to analyze control mechanisms application. The work also deals with the conceptual evolution of the adversarial principle, and its correlation with the duty of cooperation, as well as suggests objective good faith and the abuse of rights theories as premises of its correct application. The text also examines the legal nature of cooperation procedure, if it is a burden or a duty, to then investigate the application in relation to procedural subjects, notably the parties, their attorneys and the judge. In the last part of the research´s development, it shall verify the correlation between the duties of cooperation, loyalty, and procedural good faith in face to the abuse of the right to sue, abuse of the right of defense, the duty of truthfulness, litigation in bad faith, the proceedings and its flexibilization, proof matters (checking, also, the relaxation of the rules regarding the burden of proof), the issues that can be decided by the judge without requirement (especially, the prescription), appealing and phase of sentence enforcement and execution process. For the last, the survey seeks up some other exemplificative applications in specific areas of Brazilian civil procedural law.