Campus de Goiabeiras, Vitória - ES

Name: MÁIRA RAMOS CERQUEIRA

Publication date: 14/06/2017
Advisor:

Namesort descending Role
GEOVANY CARDOSO JEVEAUX Advisor *

Examining board:

Namesort descending Role
GEOVANY CARDOSO JEVEAUX Advisor *
RODRIGO REIS MAZZEI Internal Examiner *

Summary: Articles. 8 and 489, § 2, from the Civil Procedure Code of 2015 (CPC / 2015), which provide that the judge in judging, must observe the proportionality and the general criteria of balancing, refer to the law of collision developed by Robert Alexy in his Theory of Fundamental Rights. First, the main Alexyan postulates were analyzed, mainly the differentiation between rules and principles proposed by Alexy. Questions such as: Does the "proportionality" predicted in art. 8, CPC / 2015 refer to the maximum developed by Alexy to be used in the case of collision of principles, or, it had been used to designate a constitutionally foreseen axiom, which requires that the means are proportionate to the desired ends, with a view to prevent state arbitration?; Is it possible to reconcile the requirement of observance to "reasonableness" at the moment of the application of the legal order foreseen in art. 8, CPC / 2015, with the need to observe "proportionality", also provided in the same legal provision ?; And Does the new Code of Civil Procedure provide sufficient parameters for the Alexian postulates to be applied in the way they were developed by Robert Alexy in his Theory of Fundamental Rights ?, were answered throughout the explanations. It was exposed here that proportionality, at least from the viewpoint of Alexyan premises, cannot be understood neither as a principle, nor as a synonym of reasonableness. It has been shown that in the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court, in which proportionality was applied as a methodological criterion in solving hypotheses of collision between principles, apply it in most cases in a different way from those ones outlined by Robert Alexy, misrepresenting thus, almost entirely the Alexandrian postulates. This panorama may eventually jeopardize the guarantee of the realization of fundamental rights. Under the auspices of the new Code of Procedure, however, it is expected that this scenario of theoretical uncertainty and jurisprudence regarding proportionality and balancing, remain modified, because , from the evaluation, it was concluded that the new Code of Civil Procedure , offers, prima facie, safer criteria for the Alexian postulates to be applied, as developed by Alexy, since the proportionality provided in art. 8 is understood as a rule of judgment, and not as a principle, and, provided that the justification of balancing, as provided in art. 489, §2, follows sistematically the three procedural steps of the maxim of proportionality (adequacy, necessity and proportionality in the strict sense).

Keywords: Robert Alexy. Rules and Principles. Maximum of Proportionality. Code of Civil Procedure of 2015.

Access to document

Transparência Pública
Acesso à informação

© 2013 Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo. Todos os direitos reservados.
Av. Fernando Ferrari, 514 - Goiabeiras, Vitória - ES | CEP 29075-910