Submitted by Automa??o e Estat?stica (sst@bczm.ufrn.br) on 2016-04-25T23:18:51Z
No. of bitstreams: 1
CarmenSylviaAlvesDeVasconcelos_DISSERT.pdf: 1357187 bytes, checksum: 38a11f58bea2e31976a8b91e8261c9da (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Arlan Eloi Leite Silva (eloihistoriador@yahoo.com.br) on 2016-04-28T00:13:29Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1
CarmenSylviaAlvesDeVasconcelos_DISSERT.pdf: 1357187 bytes, checksum: 38a11f58bea2e31976a8b91e8261c9da (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-28T00:13:29Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1
CarmenSylviaAlvesDeVasconcelos_DISSERT.pdf: 1357187 bytes, checksum: 38a11f58bea2e31976a8b91e8261c9da (MD5)
Previous issue date: 2015-08-26 / Esta disserta??o analisa a decis?o proferida pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro na A??o
de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental 132/RJ e na A??o Direta de
Inconstitucionalidade 4277/DF, que criou, no pa?s, a uni?o est?vel entre pessoas do mesmo
sexo. Nessa decis?o, o STF interpretou conforme a Constitui??o o art. 1.723, do C?digo Civil,
invocando v?rios direitos fundamentais positivados na Carta Maior. De todos esses direitos
invocados pela Suprema Corte para basear a cria??o pretoriana, o conte?do do direito
constitucional ? igualdade ? o ?nico que corresponde, e ? suficiente, para evidenciar a
necessidade da cria??o pela via legislativa do referido instituto de direito civil, em raz?o da
proibi??o constitucional de qualquer distin??o que n?o seja expressamente prevista na pr?pria
Constitui??o (art. 3?, IV da CF). Nesse sentido, o art. 226, ? 3?, n?o se apresenta como
exce??o capaz de atender a essa condi??o de previs?o constitucional, pois, embora proteja
segundo seu teor t?o somente a uni?o est?vel ?entre o homem e a mulher?, n?o tem cond?o de
proibir a cria??o pelo legislador de outros tipos de entidades familiares, incluindo a uni?o
est?vel entre pessoas do mesmo sexo. No entanto, tal racioc?nio, embora leg?timo do ponto de
vista do legislador, n?o sustenta a cria??o do instituto pela Corte Constitucional, a quem cabe
aplicar o direito criado, interpretando-o nos limites permitidos pelo texto legal e de sua
constitucionalidade. No caso da uni?o est?vel entre pessoas do mesmo sexo, n?o poderia a
Corte deduzir que ela estivesse impl?cita na lei, como na interpreta??o conforme a
Constitui??o que foi dada pelos julgadores, em raz?o dos limites sem?nticos das palavras
homem e mulher, presentes em ambos os dispositivos. Tampouco poderia a Corte cri?-la,
ultrapassando o papel constitucionalmente destinado ao Poder Judici?rio. Criando o instituto,
o STF ultrapassou, pois, dois limites: o da interpreta??o e o da aplica??o do direito. / This dissertation analyses the Brazilian Supreme Court?s judgement in the Non-compliance
Action of the Fundamental Precept 132/RJ and in the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality
4277/DF, which created in the country the same-sex civil union. In This decision, the STF
interpreted according to the constitution Article 1.723 of the Civil Code, invoking several
fundamentals reaffirmed in the Constitution. From all these laws invoked by the Supreme
Court to support the pretorian creation, the content of consitutional Law regarding equality is
the only that corresponds, and it is sufficient to evidence the necessity of the creation, by
legislator, of the institute for civil rights, since the Constitution forbids distinctions that is not
expressly provided for in the Constitution (Art. 3?, IV, of Federal Constitution). In this way,
Article 226, ? 3? is not an exception capable of satisfying the condition of the consitutional
foresight because although it protect, according its content only the civil union ?between the
man and the woman?, it is not able to forbid the creation, by legislator, of another kinds of
families, including the same-sex civil union. As such, the reasoning, now legitimate
according to the legislator, is not support the creation of institute by Constitutional Court,
because the Court may enforce the Law, interpreting in the purviews allowed by the legal text
and its constitutionality. In regard to the civil union of individuos of the same sex, the Court
could not deduce that such union was implied by Law, like the interpretation according to the
Constitution given by judges, on grounds of semantic purviews of the words man and woman,
existents in both articles. The Court could not created it either, exceeding the legal system
role. So, upon the institute creation, the STF, exceeded two limits: the interpretation and Law
enforcement.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:IBICT/oai:repositorio.ufrn.br:123456789/20312 |
| Date | 26 August 2015 |
| Creators | Vasconcelos, Carmen Sylvia Alves de |
| Contributors | 16628876802, http://lattes.cnpq.br/6963079630876141, Mendon?a, Fabiano Andr? de Souza, 94196834434, http://lattes.cnpq.br/3456431841933671, Saraiva, Paulo Lopo, 01182528449, http://lattes.cnpq.br/6450878641547863, Martins, Leonardo |
| Publisher | Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, PROGRAMA DE P?S-GRADUA??O EM DIREITO, UFRN, Brasil |
| Source Sets | IBICT Brazilian ETDs |
| Language | Portuguese |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion, info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Source | reponame:Repositório Institucional da UFRN, instname:Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, instacron:UFRN |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0017 seconds