Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T14:34:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
453001.pdf: 307365 bytes, checksum: 8bd8c17b41a885367a6eaa2af5aeb17c (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2013-06-28 / In the procedural system current stage a collision between the effectiveness constitutional principle and timeliness constitutional principle may occur. While the first has a goal of providing all parties with the necessary means to pursue the concretization of substantive law in the phenomenon world, the second principle objective is to ensure that legal protection measures take place within a reasonable timeframe in agreement to what the controversy solution needs. Based on the assumption that in most concrete circumstances the execution of effective provision for judicial review is untimely, is the intention to defend a judicial centre-piece idea in which realization of law in the phenomenon world can happen along reasonable timeframes. The present dissertation , had by its objective, therefore, to conciliate those two fundamental standards in a probative extent, while increasing both importance of presentation of proof that attend oral procedure principles and the evaluation of a given proof that fulfill basic construction elements needed for a logical justification. If a judge mediation considering all parties and proof can lead to a more timeliness procedure, which delivers a degree of justice with better factual knowledge and higher material effectiveness towards legal protection, in the same manner, increase the importance of a proof that is supported by clear and powerful justification, provides a more practical understanding to all involved, helping one to comprehend why a given probative thesis was chosen, offering them effective jurisdictional provision and at the same time, timeliness. A procedure that models itself in the effectiveness and timeliness of jurisdictional provision, favoring oral proceeding and the decision, as ways of establish law in the phenomenon plan, allow the legitimacy of ordinary judgments and therefore, a full review when receiving the appeal, as a rule, in its double effect. / Poder? haver, no atual est?gio de sistema processual, uma colis?o entre o princ?pio constitucional da efetividade e o princ?pio constitucional da tempestividade. Enquanto aquele visa a conferir ?s partes os meios necess?rios ? possibilidade de concretiza??o do direito material no mundo fenom?nico, este tem por objetivo que a tutela jurisdicional seja prestada em tempo justific?vel ? solu??o da controv?rsia. Partindo do pressuposto de que, na maior parte das circunst?ncias concretas, a efetiva??o pr?tica da presta??o jurisdicional se d? de forma efetiva e intempestiva, pretendeu-se defender a ideia basilar de que a realiza??o do direito, no mundo fenomenol?gico dentro de um prazo razo?vel, ? poss?vel. A presente disserta??o teve por objetivo, portanto, conciliar esses dois c?nones fundamentais no ?mbito probat?rio, valorizando tanto a produ??o da prova que atenda aos ditames de um processo oral, quanto a avalia??o da prova que preencha os elementos necess?rios ? constru??o de uma justificativa racional. Se a imedia??o do juiz com as partes e com a prova tende a conferir um processo mais tempestivo, proporcionando um grau de justi?a, de cogni??o f?tica melhor, com maior efetividade material ? tutela jurisdicional, do mesmo modo, uma valora??o da prova que calhe em uma justificativa clara e contundente, possibilitando ?s partes compreender o porqu? de determinada tese probat?ria ter sido escolhida, oferece a elas efetividade no provimento jurisdicional e, ao mesmo tempo, tempestividade. Um processo que se espelhe na efetividade e na tempestividade da presta??o jurisdicional, privilegiando a oralidade e a decis?o como forma de concretiza??o do direito no plano fenom?nico, permite a legitima??o dos ju?zos ordin?rios e, com isso, a revis?o no recebimento do recurso de apela??o, como regra, no duplo efeito.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:tede2.pucrs.br:tede/4232 |
| Date | 28 June 2013 |
| Creators | Minuzzi, D?bora |
| Contributors | Macedo, Elaine Harzheim |
| Publisher | Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul, Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Direito, PUCRS, BR, Faculdade de Direito |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS, instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, instacron:PUC_RS |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| Relation | -1046629855937119302, 500, 600, 2194221341323903125 |
Page generated in 0.0025 seconds