Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2017-08-01T13:50:40Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ArthurMonteiroLinsFialho_DISSERT.pdf: 1282939 bytes, checksum: 0f1b66c2e0cfaa2e32dc138b107c42d5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2017-08-07T14:01:57Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ArthurMonteiroLinsFialho_DISSERT.pdf: 1282939 bytes, checksum: 0f1b66c2e0cfaa2e32dc138b107c42d5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-07T14:01:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ArthurMonteiroLinsFialho_DISSERT.pdf: 1282939 bytes, checksum: 0f1b66c2e0cfaa2e32dc138b107c42d5 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-06-13 / A presente disserta??o analisa a t?cnica processual da tutela de evid?ncia e o seu papel na busca pela efetiva??o dos princ?pios constitucionais do processo, levantando a problem?tica dos efeitos do tempo na atividade jurisdicional e o crescente fen?meno da sumariza??o da cogni??o processual, na qual o processo de amplo conhecimento come?a a ser visto como uma via residual para solu??o de conflitos. Empregando a t?cnica da documenta??o indireta, por meio de pesquisa bibliogr?fica, inicialmente ? apresentada a evolu??o das tutelas provis?rias em nosso ordenamento jur?dico, agora n?o mais existindo a obriga??o de comprova??o conjunta dos pressupostos da urg?ncia e da evid?ncia para a regular concess?o de uma tutela antecipada. ? feita exposi??o sobre a atividade cognitiva desenvolvida nas tutelas provis?rias, nos planos horizontal e vertical, observando a intima rela??o da ?evid?ncia? com os elementos de prova apresentados no processo, como tamb?m se enfatiza a diferen?a no grau de cogni??o existente nas tutelas de urg?ncia e evid?ncia. Examina as hip?teses de tutela de evid?ncia previstas no art. 311 do C?digo de Processo Civil, apontando cr?ticas acerca da reda??o de alguns dos seus incisos, como tamb?m apresentando sugest?es para um melhor aproveitamento da norma em estudo. Observa a tutela de evid?ncia na fase recursal e em processos que envolvam a Fazenda P?blica, analisando, ainda, a possibilidade de se realizar neg?cio jur?dico processual dispondo sobre a evid?ncia de determinado direito. Discorre sobre a evolu??o dos paradigmas do direito constitucional e a teoria sist?mica dentro do constitucionalismo, colocando a Constitui??o como elemento que influencia e ? influenciado pelas rela??es sociais. ? feita abordagem sobre a sumariza??o da cogni??o processual a partir dos princ?pios constitucionais do devido processo legal, razo?vel dura??o do processo e do efetivo acesso ? justi?a, com destaque para o problema do ?dano marginal?, que ? aquele decorrente da demora da tramita??o processual em si, independentemente da tutela jurisdicional, e que afeta todos os sujeitos do processo. Aponta a dificuldade de se conciliar o desejo por celeridade do procedimento com as garantias fundamentais do processo, tendo em vista que muitas vezes valores constitucionais ir?o colidir, sendo inevit?vel um trabalho de pondera??o por parte do julgador. Por fim, ? analisada de forma mais espec?fica a constitucionalidade da tutela de evid?ncia conforme posta nos incisos e par?grafo ?nico do artigo 311 da Lei 13.105/2015, destacando a grande discuss?o doutrin?ria a respeito da concess?o da tutela de evid?ncia sem a oitiva da parte contr?ria, em que se questiona a possibilidade de se postergar o direito ao contradit?rio mesmo nos casos em que n?o h? urg?ncia. / The present study analyzes the procedural technique of evidence protection and its role in the search for the effectiveness of the constitutional principles of the process, bringing up the issue of the time's effect in the jurisdictional activity, and the increasing phenomenon of the procedural cognition summarization, where the wide-knowledge process starts to be viewed as a residual pathway for conflict resolution. Applying the indirect documentation technique, through bibliographical research, the evolution of provisional injunctions is initially presented in our legal system, without any necessity of joint proof for the urgency and evidence assumptions for the regular concession of a prior injunction provision. An exposition of the cognitive activity developed in the provisional guardians is made in the horizontal and vertical plans, observing the close relations between the "evidence" and the evidence elements presented in the process, as well as emphasizing the difference in the level of cognition found in the emergency and evidence protections. It examines the hypotheses of injunction of evidence as previewed in art. 311 of the Code of Civil Process, pointing out criticism about the composing of some of its paragraphs, as well as presenting suggestions for a better use of the norm under study. It observes the use of evidence protection in the phase of appeal, in cases involving the Public Treasury and the possibility of carrying out legal process business on the evidence of a certain right. It discusses about the evolution of paradigms of constitutional law and systemic theory within constitutionalism, placing the Constitution as an element that influences and is influenced by social relations. An approach is made about the summarization of procedural cognition as of the constitutional principles of the legal process, reasonable length of process, and the effective access to justice, with special emphasis on the "marginal damage" issue, which comes about due to the delay in the procedural process itself, regardless of the judicial protection, which affects all subjects in the process. It points to the difficulty of reconciling the desire for celerity in the procedure with the fundamental guarantees of the process, considering that constitutional values will collide quite frequently, causing the judge to inevitably consider prudence. Lastly, a more specific analysis of the constitutionality of the protection of evidence as set forth in the clauses and single paragraph of article 311 of Law 13,105/2015 is more precisely analyzed, highlighting the great doctrinal discussion regarding the concession of injunction of evidence without the counterclaim of the opposing part, where the possibility of postponing the right to the contradictory is questioned, even in cases in which no urgency is needed.