Responsabilidade civil extracontratual do Estado : sob a ótica da omissão pelo poder executivo
Carregando...
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2023
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Frey, André Vieira
Orientador
Santos, Murilo Rezende dos
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
A responsabilidade extracontratual é definida como aquela que, decorrente de uma
ação ou omissão estatal, lícita ou ilícita, causa dano a outrem. Não caberá à presente
monografia tratar sobre as responsabilizações contratuais, que se referem a violações
presentes nas cláusulas contratuais, e nem sobre as responsabilizações por atos judiciais e do
legislativo. Sabe-se, atualmente, que a doutrina nacional não é pacífica quanto aos atos de
omissão por parte do Poder Público, e que esse tema não foi elucidado de forma evidente pela
jurisprudência. O foco da monografia versará na conduta da omissão estatal, legítima ou
ilegítima, sob a ótica do Poder Executivo, assunto de relevância e polêmica atual. As correntes
objetiva e subjetiva se destacam nesse debate, visto que é importante definir em que ponto a
omissão assume relevância jurídica. A ideia de omissão não pode ser entendida somente como
uma abstenção ou inércia, mas suscita também a compreensão, nos casos de responsabilidade
subjetiva, da discussão da culpa do serviço prestado (faute du service). Os posicionamentos
da doutrina e jurisprudência diante da omissão do Poder Público são expressivos, visto que,
apesar de não pacíficas acerca da temática, configuram como de extrema relevância para a
compreensão do cenário jurídico atual sobre atos omissivos estatais. Algumas correntes
defendem a teoria objetiva, que independe da demonstração culpa, outras a subjetiva, que
depende da demonstração de dolo e culpa (imprudência, negligência ou imperícia) e da
presença de um dever jurídico de agir. Ainda nesse cenário, há correntes de entendimento que
adotam uma posição intermediária que, diante de uma omissão específica ou própria que
demanda um dever de diligência especial do Estado, prescinde-se de demonstração de culpa
(adotando-se a responsabilidade objetiva), e, diante de uma omissão genérica ou imprópria
(adota-se a responsabilidade subjetiva) com imprescindibilidade da demonstração de uma
culpa concorrente pelo Estado no ocasionamento do dano. Apesar das divergências, há um
forte entendimento e tendência na aplicação da teoria subjetiva pelos Tribunais Superiores em
casos de omissão estatal. Terão como bases essenciais e imprescindíveis para o atingimento
do objetivo geral, de elucidar a problemática de aplicação das teorias objetiva e subjetiva;
deslindar a compreensão da caracterização da relevância jurídica da omissão e do nexo causal
entre a omissão e o evento danoso; demonstrar e correlacionar, através do método dialético,
as teses defendidas pelos principais autores das correntes subjetiva, objetiva e intermediária
da responsabilidade por omissão; estudar o entendimento vigente dos Tribunais Superiores,
STF e STJ, acerca da responsabilização por atos omissivos estatais para se extrair qual a teoria
adotada por esses; e, por fim, dissertar sobre a responsabilização por omissão do Estado em
casos de catástrofes naturais e como, em casos de atos discricionários da Administração
Pública, a responsabilidade por omissão pode se erigir.
Non-contractual liability is defined as that which, as a result of a state action or omission, whether lawful or unlawful, causes damage to others. This monograph will not deal with contractual liability, which refers to violations in contractual clauses, nor will it deal with liability for judicial and legislative acts. It is currently known that the national doctrine is not peaceful with regard to acts of omission on the part of the Government, and that this issue has not been clearly elucidated by case law. The focus of this monograph will be on the conduct of state omission, whether legitimate or illegitimate, from the perspective of the Executive Branch, a subject of current relevance and controversy. The objective and subjective currents stand out in this debate, since it is important to define at what point the omission takes on legal relevance. The idea of omission cannot only be understood as abstention or inertia, but also raises the issue of fault in the service provided (faute du service) in cases of subjective liability. The positions of doctrine and jurisprudence in relation to the omission of public authorities are significant, since, although they do not agree on the subject, they are extremely important for understanding the current legal scenario regarding acts of omission by the state. Some argue in favour of the objective theory, which does not require proof of fault, while others argue in favour of the subjective theory, which requires proof of intent and fault (recklessness, negligence or malpractice) and the presence of a legal duty to act. Still in this scenario, there are currents of understanding that adopt an intermediate position in which, in the case of a specific or proper omission that requires a special duty of diligence on the part of the state, there is no need to demonstrate fault (adopting strict liability), and in the case of a generic or improper omission (adopting subjective liability) it is essential to demonstrate concurrent fault on the part of the state in causing the damage. Despite the differences, there is a strong understanding and tendency for the Superior Courts to apply the subjective theory in cases of state omission. The essential and indispensable bases for achieving the general objective will be to elucidate the problem of applying the objective and subjective theories; to unravel the understanding of the characterisation of the legal relevance of the omission and the causal link between the omission and the harmful event; to demonstrate and correlate, through the dialectical method, the theses defended by the main authors of the subjective, objective and intermediate currents of liability for omission; study the current understanding of the Superior Courts, STF and STJ, on liability for omissive acts by the state in order to find out which theory they have adopted; and, finally, discuss liability for omission by the state in cases of natural disasters and how, in cases of discretionary acts by the Public Administration, liability for omission can arise.
Non-contractual liability is defined as that which, as a result of a state action or omission, whether lawful or unlawful, causes damage to others. This monograph will not deal with contractual liability, which refers to violations in contractual clauses, nor will it deal with liability for judicial and legislative acts. It is currently known that the national doctrine is not peaceful with regard to acts of omission on the part of the Government, and that this issue has not been clearly elucidated by case law. The focus of this monograph will be on the conduct of state omission, whether legitimate or illegitimate, from the perspective of the Executive Branch, a subject of current relevance and controversy. The objective and subjective currents stand out in this debate, since it is important to define at what point the omission takes on legal relevance. The idea of omission cannot only be understood as abstention or inertia, but also raises the issue of fault in the service provided (faute du service) in cases of subjective liability. The positions of doctrine and jurisprudence in relation to the omission of public authorities are significant, since, although they do not agree on the subject, they are extremely important for understanding the current legal scenario regarding acts of omission by the state. Some argue in favour of the objective theory, which does not require proof of fault, while others argue in favour of the subjective theory, which requires proof of intent and fault (recklessness, negligence or malpractice) and the presence of a legal duty to act. Still in this scenario, there are currents of understanding that adopt an intermediate position in which, in the case of a specific or proper omission that requires a special duty of diligence on the part of the state, there is no need to demonstrate fault (adopting strict liability), and in the case of a generic or improper omission (adopting subjective liability) it is essential to demonstrate concurrent fault on the part of the state in causing the damage. Despite the differences, there is a strong understanding and tendency for the Superior Courts to apply the subjective theory in cases of state omission. The essential and indispensable bases for achieving the general objective will be to elucidate the problem of applying the objective and subjective theories; to unravel the understanding of the characterisation of the legal relevance of the omission and the causal link between the omission and the harmful event; to demonstrate and correlate, through the dialectical method, the theses defended by the main authors of the subjective, objective and intermediate currents of liability for omission; study the current understanding of the Superior Courts, STF and STJ, on liability for omissive acts by the state in order to find out which theory they have adopted; and, finally, discuss liability for omission by the state in cases of natural disasters and how, in cases of discretionary acts by the Public Administration, liability for omission can arise.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
responsabilidade civil extracontratual por omissão do Estado , administração pública , atos do poder executivo , teorias objetiva e subjetiva , doutrina e jurisprudência , non-contractual civil liability for State omission , public administration , acts of the executive branch , objective and subjective theories , doctrine and case law