Name: ANDRÉ FELIPE DE ARAÚJO BOINA
Publication date: 12/04/2022
Advisor:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| RICARDO GUEIROS BERNARDES DIAS | Advisor * |
Examining board:
| Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| GEOVANY CARDOSO JEVEAUX | Internal Examiner * |
| HERMES ZANETI JUNIOR | Internal Examiner * |
| RICARDO GUEIROS BERNARDES DIAS | Advisor * |
Summary: The General Compelling Reasons, as a requirement for the admissibility of the
Extraordinary Appeal, underwent significant changes in its rules from
Regimental Amendment No. 54, of 07/01/2020 to the Internal Regulations of the Federal Supreme Court, and the judgment of ARE No. 1,273,640. After a bibliographic analysis, it is concluded that such changes are capable of transforming this requirement into a filter of recursal relevance typical of the Supreme Courts. The various discourses of (de)legitimation of the Constitutional Jurisdiction in Democracies were investigated. Qualitative investigations of judgments of the Federal Supreme Court were added to the previous bibliographic analyzes, concluding that, despite being possible to glimpse typical characteristics of Courts of precedents, the possibility of individual judgment of appeals is more similar to the Courts of cassational feature. In addition, it was concluded that the decision-making
individualism in the Supreme Court leaves room for arbitrariness, confirming
the diagnosis of individually empowered Justices brought to the Court by the
doctrine, with the potential to undermine the Court`s legitimacy.
Keywords: Extraordinary Appeal. General Compelling Reasons. Precedents.
