The Subjective Expansions of the Passive Pole in Executivis
Name: ROGER GONÇALVES SALUCI
Publication date: 27/05/2026
Examining board:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| RODRIGO REIS MAZZEI | Examinador Interno |
| SILAS SILVA SANTOS | Examinador Externo |
| THIAGO FERREIRA SIQUEIRA | Examinador Interno |
| TIAGO FIGUEIREDO GONCALVES | Presidente |
Summary: This dissertation examines subjective expansions within civil enforcement proceedings, with
particular emphasis on the redirection of the passive pole and the limits imposed by procedural
guarantees. It is grounded on the premise that the increasing complexity of legal relationships
challenges the traditional understanding of enforcement as a merely satisfactive activity, thus
requiring the recognition of a relevant cognitive dimension, especially when the assets of
individuals not formally included in the enforceable title are targeted. In this context, critical
reflections are developed regarding the abstract efficacy of the enforceable title and the so-
called dogma of the single outcome, demonstrating their insufficiency to legitimize subjective
expansion in the absence of adversarial proceedings. The study shows that the inclusion of third
parties in enforcement entails a modification of the litigated subject matter, thereby requiring
the establishment of an appropriate procedural framework to ensure their participation. It is
argued that the mere redirection of enforcement, without the initiation of a proper cognitive
incident capable of ensuring prior and effective adversarial proceedings, is invalid. Within this
framework, the incident of piercing the corporate veil is analyzed as a procedural model suitable
for guiding other forms of subjective expansion, given its guarantee-oriented structure. The
dissertation concludes that the effectiveness of civil enforcement must be understood in
harmony with the fundamental guarantees of due process, particularly adversarial proceedings,
making it necessary to develop procedural mechanisms capable of reconciling credit
satisfaction with the legitimacy of judicial action.
