Submitted by PPG Direito (ppgdir@pucrs.br) on 2018-04-26T17:54:55Z No. of bitstreams: 1 LETICIA_MARQUES_PADILHA_DIS.pdf: 2876132 bytes, checksum: ee5986b0e1b31cbd57f25019400b02a7 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Caroline Xavier (caroline.xavier@pucrs.br) on 2018-05-11T18:51:34Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 LETICIA_MARQUES_PADILHA_DIS.pdf: 2876132 bytes, checksum: ee5986b0e1b31cbd57f25019400b02a7 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-05-11T19:03:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 LETICIA_MARQUES_PADILHA_DIS.pdf: 2876132 bytes, checksum: ee5986b0e1b31cbd57f25019400b02a7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-02-27 / Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - CAPES / The duty to state reasons for judicial decisions is provided in art. 93, subsection IX, of the Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988. In infraconstitutional legislation it was already present in the procedural documents of 1939 and 1973. However, the Code of Civil Procedure of 2015 sought to improve what is already provided for in constitutional and infraconstitutional legislation. The present study draws an analysis of art. 489, paragraph 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2015, explaining what cannot be considered a reasoned decision. More specifically, subsection IV of the article, which provides for the obligation of the judge to face all the arguments brought by the party who, at least in theory, can contradict the conclusion adopted in the decision and, therefore, to base a position different from that of the judgmental. As the excessive volume of litigation that has weakened respect for the duty to state reasons has become more frequent among us, through decisions based on ready-made utterances of empty character. The idea of said device is to reinforce that the magistrate cannot choose the arguments of the succumbing party that wants to face. It ceases to be relevant in the process only what the magistrate arbitrarily believes to be worthy of consideration, and everything that could lead to a result different from that obtained has become important. The purpose of art. 489, paragraph 1, subsection IV, of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2015 is that if the decision does not analyze all the fundaments of the succumbing thesis, whether invoked by the author or defendant will be considered invalid for lack of reasoning. And the lack of reasoning goes against the constitutionally foreseen, thus facing the Democratic State of Law. / O dever de fundamenta??o das decis?es judiciais tem previs?o no art. 93, inciso IX, da Constitui??o da Rep?blica Federativa do Brasil de 1988. Em legisla??o infraconstitucional j? estava presente nos diplomas processuais de 1939 e 1973. Todavia, o C?digo de Processo Civil de 2015 buscou aprimorar o j? previsto na legisla??o constitucional e infraconstitucional. O presente estudo tra?a uma an?lise do art. 489, ? 1?, do C?digo de Processo Civil de 2015, explicitando o que n?o pode ser considerada uma decis?o fundamentada. Mais especificamente o inciso IV do referido artigo que disp?e acerca da obrigatoriedade do julgador de enfrentar todos os argumentos trazidos pela parte que, ao menos em tese, s?o capazes de contradizer a conclus?o adotada na decis?o e, por consequ?ncia, fundamentar posi??o diversa da exarada pelo julgador. Visto ser cada vez mais frequente entre n?s o excessivo volume de lit?gios que t?m fragilizado o respeito ao dever de fundamenta??o, atrav?s de decis?es calcadas em frases prontas de car?ter absolutamente vazio. A ideia do referido dispositivo ? refor?ar que o magistrado n?o pode escolher os argumentos da parte sucumbente que quer enfrentar. Deixa de ser relevante no processo apenas aquilo que o magistrado arbitrariamente acredita ser digno de considera??o, e passa a ser importante tudo o que poderia levar a um resultado diferente daquele que foi obtido. O objetivo do art. 489, ? 1?, inciso IV, do C?digo de Processo Civil de 2015 ? de que se a decis?o n?o analisa todos os fundamentos da tese sucumbente, seja invocada pelo autor ou r?u, ser? considerada inv?lida por aus?ncia de fundamenta??o. E a falta de fundamenta??o vai de encontro ao previsto constitucionalmente, afrontando, dessa forma, o Estado Democr?tico de Direito.