A redistribuição do ônus do tempo decorrente das tutelas provisórias no direito processual civil
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2019-11
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Rocha, Luiz Otávio Silva
Orientador
Souza, André Pagani de
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
O presente artigo irá tratar da morosidade processual e os meios usados pelo legislador para tentar evitar que essa demora acabe por prejudicar a parte que recorrer ao judiciário, visando obter tutela satisfativa em tempo hábil. Durante um longo período, o autor da demanda judicial era obrigado a arcar com o tempo que levasse para que a causa amadurecesse o suficiente para o julgamento de mérito, contudo, com o passar do tempo e com as evoluções processualistas, percebeu-se que, em determinadas situações, nas quais o autor tivesse uma grande probabilidade de seu direito e este não pudesse esperar o tempo normal do processo, sob pena de que a demora causasse um dano grave ou de difícil reparação ao bem tutelado, o magistrado poderia, sumariamente, adiantar o direito pleiteado total ou parcialmente, ficando essa medida conhecida como antecipação de tutela. Com a entrada em vigor do Código de Processo Civil de 2015, o legislador alterou o nome dado anteriormente e trouxe também uma nova modalidade, a tutela de evidência. Através dessa medida, não é mais necessário a comprovação de que a demora poderá causar dano grave, mas apenas provar que a probabilidade do seu direito é alta. Doutrinadores entendem que a entrada em vigor desse instituto é a admissão de que o tempo é um ônus que não deve ser carregado apenas pelo autor, como se ele fosse o culpado pela demora processual, devendo ser redistribuído entre as partes de forma isonômica.
The presente article will deal with processing delay and the measures used by the legislator to try to avoid this delay from endangering the party that turns to the judiciary, aiming to obtain satisfactory court protection in a timely manner. For a long time, the plaintiff was required to deal with the necessary time to the enough maturement of the case for the merits judgment, however, the course of time and procedural developments, revealed that, in certain situations, in which the plaintiff had a high probability of his right and couldn’t wait for the usual time of proceedings, under penalty of serious damage or of difficult reparation to the protected asset, the judge could, summarly, advance the right claimed, in whole or in part, known as advance relief. With the entry into force of the Code of Civil Procedure in 2015, the legislator changed the name given earlier and also brought a new category, called the protection of evidence. With this measure, it’s no longer necessary to prove that the delay can cause serious damage, but to prove the high probability of the rights. Doctrinators understand that the entry into force of this institute is the admission that time is a burden that should not be endured only by the plaintiff, as if he was blamed for the procedural delay, but redistributed by the parties in an isonomic way.
The presente article will deal with processing delay and the measures used by the legislator to try to avoid this delay from endangering the party that turns to the judiciary, aiming to obtain satisfactory court protection in a timely manner. For a long time, the plaintiff was required to deal with the necessary time to the enough maturement of the case for the merits judgment, however, the course of time and procedural developments, revealed that, in certain situations, in which the plaintiff had a high probability of his right and couldn’t wait for the usual time of proceedings, under penalty of serious damage or of difficult reparation to the protected asset, the judge could, summarly, advance the right claimed, in whole or in part, known as advance relief. With the entry into force of the Code of Civil Procedure in 2015, the legislator changed the name given earlier and also brought a new category, called the protection of evidence. With this measure, it’s no longer necessary to prove that the delay can cause serious damage, but to prove the high probability of the rights. Doctrinators understand that the entry into force of this institute is the admission that time is a burden that should not be endured only by the plaintiff, as if he was blamed for the procedural delay, but redistributed by the parties in an isonomic way.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
processing delay , provisional protection , redistribution of the burden of time , code of Civil Procedure in 2015 , morosidade processual , tutelas provisórias , redistribuição do ônus do tempo , código de processo civil 2015