Name: FLÁVIO ROMERO DE OLIVEIRA CASTRO LESSA
Publication date: 14/06/2017
Advisor:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| FLAVIO CHEIM JORGE | Advisor * |
Examining board:
| Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| FLAVIO CHEIM JORGE | Advisor * |
| MARCELO ABELHA RODRIGUES | Internal Examiner * |
Summary: The main purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the possibility of stabilizing the effects of the antecipated judicial protection decision, according to the new provisions in articles 303 and 304 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2015, however, not in general, but in the specific hypothesis in which the grant of the measure is filed against the Public Treasury. It starts from a normative perspective of the institutes. It is analyzed if there is, and, if so, under what conditions, the compatibility of that stabilization with the material and procedural prerogatives conferred to the Public Power. The work is divided in two parts: in the first one, the main characteristics that surround the stabilization institute are exposed; in the second part, the stabilization with the specific focus in the Public Treasury is studied. Three hypotheses are presented as possible obstacles to stabilization: (i) the principle of the unavailability of the public interest; (ii) the doctrinal recognition of a single legal regime formed between stabilization and monitory action (microsystem), hence the incidence of the shipment required also as a condition for stabilization, even though it is legally provided, specifically, only for the monitory action (art. 701, § 4º, CPC/15); and (iii) the legal exigency of the shipment required as a condition for stabilization, taking into account only its general rule (art. 496, CPC/15), regardless of any consideration of the specific rule contained in article 701, § 4º, CPC/15. It is concluded, after removing the three mentioned hypotheses, by the possibility of stabilization of the antecedent judicial protection against the Public Treasury. Finally, in a separate chapter, we investigate the importance of stabilization in the Special Courts, and, in particular, we conclude that it is impossible, given the peculiarities of the summary procedure.
Keywords: Stabilization. Public Treasury. Antecedent judicial protection. Compatibility. Shipment required.
