Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:22:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Lilian Regina Ioti Henrique Gaspar.pdf: 915540 bytes, checksum: 3bd23f09c211003c63c6611d95e11d21 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-06-10 / Both the Common Law legal systems and the Civil Law jurisdictions, aims to guard legal certainty and equality, given that these principles are essential to ensuring a fair and equitable society. This paper will demonstrate the importance of predictability for the establishment of a state founded on these principles. In this sense, become relevant the Supreme Courts, to the extent that they are responsible for giving unit to the law, that can be achieved through the establishment of precedents, to be followed by hierarchically lower courts. Thus, the idea that the judiciary is the body that acts, alone, in the resolution of individual disputes is obsolete and no longer consistent with the notion of system that must prevail in any legal system. It is based on the positions adopted by the judiciary that citizens should guide their conduct. Therefore, for the judicial system to be effective and can provide legal certainty and equality for citizens, there must be mechanisms to confer binding to judicial precedents. Given this, will then be focused the technique of repetitive extraordinary and special appeals trial, introduced in our legal system by the Acts 11.418 passed in 2006 and 11.472 passed in 2008, through the articles 543-B and 543-C of the Civil Procedure Code, as a way to demonstrate their ability to provide predictability to the law, by giving unity to its interpretation, enabling identical cases receive the same solution of the judiciary. Within this perspective this work, which, in a critical way, try to force a larger reflection on the institutes involved will be developed / Tanto os sistemas jurisdicionais de Common Law, quanto as jurisdições de Civil Law, tem por objetivo o resguardo da segurança jurídica e da isonomia, tendo em vista que tais princípios são essenciais para a garantia de uma sociedade justa e igualitária. O presente trabalho demonstrará a importância da previsibilidade do direito para o estabelecimento de um Estado fundado nesses preceitos. Nesse sentido, ganham relevância os Tribunais de Cúpula, na medida em que são eles os responsáveis por conceder unidade ao direito, unidade esta que pode ser alcançada por meio do estabelecimento de precedentes, que devem ser seguidos pelos tribunais hierarquicamente inferiores. Assim, a ideia de que o Judiciário é órgão que atua, tão somente, na resolução dos conflitos individuais é obsoleta e não mais condiz com a noção de sistema, que deve imperar em qualquer ordenamento jurídico. Com efeito, é com base nas posições adotadas pelo Poder Judiciário que os cidadãos devem pautar suas condutas. Portanto, para que o sistema jurisdicional seja efetivo e consiga proporcionar segurança jurídica e isonomia aos cidadãos, deve haver mecanismos capazes de conferir força obrigatória aos precedentes judiciais. Diante disso, será, então, enfocada a técnica de julgamento de recursos extraordinários e especiais repetitivos, introduzida em nosso ordenamento jurídico pelas Leis 11.418 de 2006 e 11.472 de 2008, por meio dos arts. 543-B e 543-C, do Código de Processo Civil, como forma de demonstrar a sua capacidade de assegurar previsibilidade ao direito, ao conceder unidade à sua interpretação, possibilitando que casos idênticos recebam a mesma solução do Judiciário. Dentro dessa ótica será desenvolvido este trabalho, que, de uma maneira crítica, tentará forçar uma maior reflexão acerca dos institutos envolvidos

Globally, the justice system has set up courts to respond to complaints of a criminal and civil nature. Courts also respond to complaints which require swift relief by way of shortened procedures, in the form of motion proceedings. In all these complaints, courts have to respond in a manner that leaves litigants with a feeling of satisfaction that justice has been done. To the end of ensuring that there is legal certainty, justice systems in all jurisdictions have established a hierarchy of courts, with lower courts being bound by the decisions of higher courts in their jurisdiction. There has been no problem in the application of this principle called stare decisis, or judicial precedent, in disputes of law. However, in disputes of constitutional interpretation, courts have demonstrated a marked shift from observing the rule of judicial precedent. The disregard for this rule manifests itself particularly in the adjudication of cases surrounded by controversy. It is argued herein that constitutional interpretation is no different from legal interpretation, in that the rule of judicial precedent which characterises court decisions in legal disputes, should characterise court decisions in constitutional interpretation disputes. The Constitutional Court of South Africa itself, though it is the highest arbiter in constitutional matters, is bound by its own previous decisions, unless its previous decisions have become manifestly wrong. Three constitutional rights are analysed. The right to life in its three manifestations, namely, the right to life of the unborn child, the right to life of the convicted criminal not to be hanged, and the right of the terminally ill to continue living by receiving medical care at state expense. The other two rights are the right to privacy, and the right to culture. The right to privacy is the right that has been claimed in political controversies. In isolated instances, specifically mentioned herein, the Constitutional Assembly and the drafters of the Constitution have also contributed to the resultant inconsistency in constitutional interpretation. This is especially so with regard to the right to practise one‘s culture. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:24:21Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Rodrigo Giacomeli Nunes Massud.pdf: 1110890 bytes, checksum: e4b492fcf06926736dbb3cffae5f2bbf (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-03-11 / Two major factors should be highlighted for a thematic overview of this study: (i) the revolution of language studies (linguistic turn) and its great repercussion on the interpretation and establishment of a legal reality, having its peak with the proposal for cognitive isolation, the so called abyss of knowledge; and (ii) the appreciation of legal precedents in shaping the legal-tax relations and in the construction of the normative senses, with the projection for the legitimate future expectations, rationalizing the jurisdictional rendering through its programmed mechanization and thereby distancing from the factual particularities of concrete cases. A combination of the arising phenomena of these categorical axes, a legal-philosophical and dogmatic integration in the study of res judicata and rescission in tax matters by alteration of precedent cases was accomplished, in light of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code of 2015, having its methodological counterpoint on the guidance disseminated by the Legal Opinion PGFN nª 492/2011 / Dois grandes fatores se destacam numa síntese temática do trabalho: (i) a revolução dos estudos da linguagem (linguistic turn) e sua grande repercussão em matéria de interpretação e constituição da realidade jurídica, com ápice na proposta de isolamento cognitivo do ser, o chamado abismo do conhecimento; e (ii) a valorização dos precedentes na conformação das relações jurídico-tributárias e na construção dos sentidos normativos, com a projeção para as legítimas expectativas futuras, racionalizando-se a prestação jurisdicional por meio de sua mecanização programada e, com isso, distanciando-se das particularidades fáticas dos casos em concreto. Aliando os fenômenos decorrentes destes eixos categóricos, procuramos realizar uma integração jurídico-filosófica e dogmática no estudo da coisa julgada e da rescisória em matéria tributária por alteração de jurisprudência, à luz do Código de Processo Civil de 2015, tendo como contraponto metodológico as orientações veiculadas e difundidas pelo Parecer PGFN n.º 492/2011