Name: RICARDO CHAMON RIBEIRO II
Publication date: 21/05/2019
Advisor:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| HERMES ZANETI JUNIOR | Advisor * |
Examining board:
| Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| HERMES ZANETI JUNIOR | Advisor * |
| MARCELO ABELHA RODRIGUES | Internal Examiner * |
Summary: The Civil Procedure Code of 2015 redimensioned "jurisprudential law", proposing a model of
formally binding normative precedents aimed to face the issue of precedents from the
imperative of rationality. The present study, in this context, seeks to differentiate the
paradigm inaugurated by the Code of 2015, demonstrating its accommodation to the post-
positivist achievements and, thus, proposes that, if adequately dogmatized, the model has the
ability to remedy the main dysfunctions bequeathed by the past validity. Contrary to what
some objections suggest, the model does not intend to stagnate the Law, since, besides
recommending the clear identification of the ratio decidendi, it ensures means of promotion
of departures that guarantee autonomous treatment whenever the case recommends, in spite of
apparent similarity between instant-case and precedent-case. Under the requirement of
analytical and substantial grounding, the dogmatic nucleus (art. 926, 927 and 489, §1o) offers
the distinguishing not only as a means of defending stability, isonomy and legal certainty to
the jurisdiction, but as a contribution to the development and oxygenation of the Law itself,
since the proper identification of factual differences refines and concretizes the determinant
foundations originally formed. In this particular, the research decomposes the technique into
"declarative distinguishing", as method and result of comparison between cases and
"distinguishing constitutive", an argumentative process through which reasoning by counter-
analogies develops. It is necessary, however, to define criteria to avoid subversion of the
institute. From the analysis of cases already brought to the Judiciary Branch and a re-reading
of part of the related doctrine, the research seeks to touch on parameters of legitimacy of
application and distinction, arguing that illegitimate distinction should be avoided to the
maximum, under feather of erosion of the forged model. In the end, after a survey of the main
considerations on the subject - above all, regarding the problem of material facts -, the study
suggests a dogmatic proposition to tangentially apply and distinguish precedents, trying to
interrelate the phases (formation and interpretation), in order to achieve the balance between
fidelity to the original meaning of the precedent and the flexibilization of the norm in the
chain of later resignifications inherent in the discursive nature of Law.
KEYWORDS: process judicial precedent ratio decidendi material facts - distinguishing
