Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2015-12-03T23:16:48Z No. of bitstreams: 1 ClaudiaVechiTorres_DISSERT.pdf: 1254900 bytes, checksum: f84789a1a3814d5451162a45b87ac796 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2015-12-09T22:40:51Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 ClaudiaVechiTorres_DISSERT.pdf: 1254900 bytes, checksum: f84789a1a3814d5451162a45b87ac796 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-12-09T22:40:51Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ClaudiaVechiTorres_DISSERT.pdf: 1254900 bytes, checksum: f84789a1a3814d5451162a45b87ac796 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-09-04 / O ordenamento jur?dico brasileiro sofreu grandes transforma??es no ?mbito do Direito das Fam?lias com a Constitui??o Federal de 1988, a qual incorporou as mudan?as dos valores e costumes socioculturais que afloraram na sociedade p?s-moderna brasileira, com a repersonaliza??o da fam?lia, a partir dos princ?pios da dignidade da pessoa humana, da igualdade, bem como da afetividade e da solidariedade familiar; sendo o conceito de fam?lia alargado, notabilizando a socioafetividade e o eudemonismo. O objetivo geral desta disserta??o ? analisar as interpreta??es constitucionais de casos paradigm?ticos dos Tribunais Superiores Brasileiros verificando as condi??es e comportamentos necess?rios ? realiza??o dos princ?pios da afetividade e da solidariedade familiar. Para tanto, utiliza-se a pesquisa explorat?ria e descritiva feita por meio de livros, artigos cient?ficos, jurisprud?ncias, monografias e consulta a peri?dicos especializados para identificar a fundamenta??o e fins espec?ficos dos princ?pios da afetividade e da solidariedade familiar no ?mbito das normas constitucionais, sistematizando o significado preliminar desses princ?pios, para em seguida constatar nos julgados dos tribunais p?trios, os crit?rios e padr?es de comportamentos utilizados na aplica??o dos mesmos. A an?lise das recentes decis?es do Supremo Tribunal Federal e do Superior Tribunal de Justi?a no ?mbito das rela??es familiares, cuja abordagem interpretativa da norma considera o homem como ser ontologicamente de linguagem, demonstram que a afetividade e a solidariedade familiar s?o princ?pios constitucionais concretizados em normas decis?es, que n?o afetam o princ?pio da prote??o da seguran?a jur?dica, apesar da incipiente especifica??o de crit?rios para o seu uso. / The Brazilian juridical ordain has suffered several transformations on Family Law as of the 1988 Federal Constitution, which incorporated the changes in socio-cultural values and behaviors that appeared in the post-modern Brazilian society, with the repersonalization of the family, beginning with the principles of human dignity, affectivity and familiar solidarity; occurring an enlargement of the concept of family, increasing the relevance of socioaffectivity and eudaimonia. The general purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the constitutional interpretations of paradigmatic cases of the Brazilian Superior Courts checking the conditions and behaviors required to achieve the principles of affectivity and familiar solidarity. To do so, uses an exploratory and descriptive research trough books, scientific papers, jurisprudence, monographs and consult to specialized magazines to identify the reasons and specific purposes of the principles of affectivity and family solidarity within the constitutional norms, systematizing the primary meaning of these principles, then to observe the trial of patriotic courts, the criteria and standards of behavior used in their application. The analysis of recent decisions of the Supreme Federal Court and the Superior Court of Justice on the topic of the familiar relations, utilizing the new interpretative approach to the law that considers man as an ontological being of language, demonstrate that the affectivity and familiar solidarity are constitutional principles concretized in decisions, that don?t affect the principle of protection of the juridical security, that is, don?t cause uncertainty despite the incipient specification of criteria to its use

Submitted by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2017-08-07T18:42:31Z No. of bitstreams: 1 JoseDinizdeMoraesDissertacaoParcial2016.pdf: 1644618 bytes, checksum: d3eb7786ef4d58310928aa2e86dfe488 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Sara Ribeiro (sara.ribeiro@ucb.br) on 2017-08-07T18:42:42Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 JoseDinizdeMoraesDissertacaoParcial2016.pdf: 1644618 bytes, checksum: d3eb7786ef4d58310928aa2e86dfe488 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-08-07T18:42:42Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 JoseDinizdeMoraesDissertacaoParcial2016.pdf: 1644618 bytes, checksum: d3eb7786ef4d58310928aa2e86dfe488 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-12-13 / The main purpose of this work is to investigate the incidental scope of the new rules established by Law No. 9.882 / 99, which deals with the prosecution and judgment of the claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept, which is part of art. 102, paragraph 1?? of the Federal Constitution, in the part concerning the concept of fundamental precept. It is based upon the premise that the traditional fundamental constitutional precepts cannot be confused with what it is called the demonstrative fundamental precepts, in other words, with those who lend themselves to the handling of the claim of non-compliance with a fundamental precept (ADPF). A semantic-pragmatic reading of the constitutional text, co-text and context concludes that a fundamental precept is not confused with any of the categories of constitutional norms, nor is it synonymous with constitutional norm, fundamental norm, constitutional principle, fundamental right or fundamental precept. The ADPF never had the redeeming purpose of the Federal Constitution assigned to it, let alone an instrument of protection of the sacred constitutional principles. Not by incompatibility or inadequacy, but by the simple fact that it was aimed at various goals. It was not intended to improve the system of concentrated control, it was not exclusively aimed at acts of public power, it did not differentiate between normative acts or concrete acts, and much less discriminate against fundamental norms of other constitutional norms. Its main objective was the observance and compliance with the fundamental precepts, that is, constitutional precepts that directly impose obligations and duties to any person, as long as they arise directly from the Constitution itself. A fundamental precept is a constitutional imposition that requires or prohibits a certain conduct. A constitutional norm that does not depend on legislative regulation nor the appeal to another normative system. And if only these are arguable, by going beyond the notion of fundamental precept fundamentally to broader fields, Law n??. 9.882 / 99 usurped a legislative function, since only by amendment to the Federal Constitution would it be possible to change the competence of the Federal Supreme Court. When contemplating interpretative elements beyond the text, with its theories, the Linguistic Analysis authorizes to specify the original notion of argumentative precept and to reveal, not a constitutional mutation, but a constitutional counterfeit, by elevating the ADPF to the level of other constitutional actions (ADI, ADC etc.), without a constitutional amendment and without the support on constitutional provisions. The ADPF is filed in almost all cases in which a constitutional obligation is directly violated, if there is no other constitutional provision for that specific measure. This is our notion of demonstrative fundamental precept. / Este trabalho tem por objetivo prec??puo investigar o ??mbito incidental das novas normas veiculadas pela Lei n?? 9.882/99, que disp??e sobre o processo e julgamento da argui????o de descumprimento de preceito fundamental, integrativa do ?? 1o do art. 102 da Constitui????o Federal, no que diz respeito ao conceito de preceito fundamental e de descumprimento. Parte da premissa de que os tradicionais preceitos constitucionais fundamentais n??o podem ser confundidos com os que se denomina aqui de preceitos fundamentais arguitivos, isto ??, com aqueles que se prestam ao manejo da a????o de argui????o de descumprimento de preceito fundamental (ADPF). A partir de uma leitura sem??ntico-pragm??tica do texto, cotexto e contexto constitucionais, chega-se ?? conclus??o de que um preceito fundamental arguitivo n??o se confunde com nenhuma das categorias de normas constitucionais, nem ?? sin??nimo de norma constitucional, de norma fundamental, de princ??pio constitucional, direito fundamental ou preceito fundamental. A ADPF originariamente nunca teve o prop??sito redentor da Constitui????o Federal que lhe atribu??ram e, muito menos, de instrumento de prote????o dos sagrados princ??pios constitucionais. N??o por incompatibilidade ou inadequa????o, mas pelo simples fato de que visava a fins bens diversos e a eles n??o se op??e. N??o visava a aprimorar o sistema de controle concentrado, n??o tinha como alvo exclusivamente os atos do poder p??blico, n??o diferenciava entre atos normativos ou atos concretos, e, muitos menos ainda, discriminar normas fundamentais de outras normas constitucionais. Seu principal objetivo era a observ??ncia e cumprimentos a alguns espec??ficos preceitos constitucionais, isto ??, preceitos constitucionais que diretamente imp??em obriga????es e deveres a qualquer pessoa, desde que decorrentes diretamente da pr??pria Constitui????o a injun????o. Um preceito fundamental arguitivo ?? uma imposi????o constitucional que obriga ou pro??be uma determinada conduta; uma norma constitucional que n??o depende de regulamenta????o legislativa nem o apelo a outro sistema normativo. E se apenas esses s??o argu??veis, a Lei n?? 9.882/99, ao extravasar a no????o de preceito fundamental arguitivo para campos mais vastos, usurpou fun????o legislativa, pois s?? por emenda ?? Constitui????o Federal seria poss??vel alterar a compet??ncia do Excelso STF. A Pragm??tica Lingu??stica ao contemplar elementos interpretativos para al??m do texto, com suas teorias, autoriza precisar a no????o origin??ria de preceito arguitivo e revelar, n??o uma muta????o constitucional, mas uma contrafa????o constitucional, ao elevar a ADPF ao n??vel das demais a????es constitucionais (ADI, ADC etc.), sem emenda constitucional, e sem respaldo em dispositivos constitucionais. Em quase todos os casos em que uma obriga????o constitucional ?? diretamente violada cabe ADPF, se n??o houver previs??o constitucional de outra medida espec??fica. Eis a no????o de preceito fundamental arguitivo.