Name: PEDRO LENNO ROVETTA NOGUEIRA
Publication date: 07/07/2020
Advisor:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| FLAVIO CHEIM JORGE | Advisor * |
Examining board:
| Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| FLAVIO CHEIM JORGE | Advisor * |
| MARCELO ABELHA RODRIGUES | Internal Examiner * |
| THIAGO FERREIRA SIQUEIRA | Internal Examiner * |
Summary: This essay analyses the need of an effective protection for the brazillian
democratic system, avoiding that the time lapse during its process compromise
the exercise of democracy. With that, the study was developed to investigate
the compatibility of the provisional protection provided in Book V of the
2015 Civil Procedure Code with the electoral demands, in order that they
could provide the effective judicial protection for the popular choice of the
policymakers. In this regard, first, the characteristics of the democratic
system were analyzed, especially the idea of representative democracy and
what the exercise of suffrage involves. Likewise, there was an explanation of
the definition of jurisdictional protection and its classifications. Then, it
was pointed out that specific protections are the most appropriate ones for
democracy, especially in the inhibitory, illegal removal and specific
compensation methods. Soon after, it was observed that the reffered specific
protections are the content of provisional tutelage in Electoral Law, which
implies some consequences. Ahead, it was explained about Electoral Law in its
material aspect, pointing out its most relevant principles for this study and
its purpose of disciplining the electoral process, understanding it as the
succession of acts that constitutes the choice of representatives.
Afterwards, it was introduced the Electoral Procedural Laws paradigm wich
predicts actions that impact the course of the choosing representatives
process, as well as a classification of these demands was made according to
the penalty they deliver, an important criterion for the application of
provisional protection. Following this step, an in-depth analysis of the
provisional tutelage laid down in CPC/2015 was carried out, exposing its
concepts, purposes and characteristics. Such exam took place on the basis of
the systematization carried out by the CPC/2015, separating these protections
into the type based on urgency, which is divided into precautionary
(conservative) and anticipated (satisfactory), and the type based on
evidence. Finally, the viability of using the mentioned provisional tutelage
in electoral litigation was proven, in order to properly protect democracy.
In this conclusion, it was explained that urgent advance relief can be used
in demands that influence electoral advertisements and in those that cease
the practice of some abuse of power. In addition, the stabilization of the
prior advance relief was refuted. Still, it was annoted that the evidence
tutelage is compatible with the lawsuits that prescribe the most serious
penalties, such as denial of registration, revocation and loss of mandate.
Finally, it was presented wich precautionary measures would be possible in
the electoral field and the possibility of deferring them ex officio.
KEY WORDS: Democratic system; Electoral process; Effective judicial protection; 2015 Civil procedure code; Provisional protection. Effectiveness.
