Os limites da interpretação da taxatividade mitigada na interposição de agravo de instrumento
Carregando...
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2021-06
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Paz, Vitor Nascimento
Orientador
Jorgeti, Lourdes Regina
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
O Código de Processo Civil de 2015 elencou nos incisos do artigo 1.015 as hipóteses de cabimento do recurso de Agravo de Instrumento. Contudo, surgiram decisões interlocutórias não previstas no rol do artigo que mereciam ser tuteladas de imediato, sob perda superveniente do objeto, caso fossem discutidas apenas em sede de preliminar de Apelação. Diante deste contexto, surgiram dúvidas sobre qual deveria ser a melhor interpretação para os incisos do artigo. Doutrina e a jurisprudência divergiram sobre o tema e três teses de maior relevância foram criadas. A primeira alegava que o rol era fechado, não admitindo interpretações, já a segunda, defendia a ideia de que o rol admitia interpretação extensiva e a terceira corrente entendia que o rol era fechado, mas admitia interpretação extensiva. No intuito de pacificar o tema, o Superior Tribunal de Justiça, em sede de Recurso Especial, decidiu pela interpretação mitigada dos incisos do artigo. Portanto, o intuito deste artigo é entender o que de fato mudou com o novo entendimento, bem como quais são os novos limites de interposição de Agravo de Instrumento em decisões interlocutórias.
The Code of Civil Procedure of 2015 listed in the items of article 1.015 the hypotheses for the appeal of an interlocutory appeal. However, decisions arose interlocutory not provided for in the list of the article that deserve to be protected immediately, under supervening loss of the object, if any occurred discussed only in the preliminary Appeal. In view of the context, doubts arose as to whether this was the best interpretation for the items of the article. Doctrine and jurisprudence diverged on the subject and three theses of greater strength. The first claimed that the role was closed, not admitting interpretations, while the second, defended the idea that the role admitted extensive interpretation and the third current understood that the role was closed, but admitted extensive interpretation. In order to pacify the issue, the Superior Court of Justice, in the context of a Special Appeal, decided by the mitigated interpretation of the items of the article. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to understand what has actually changed with the new understanding, as well as what are the new limits of interposition of instrument in interlocutory decisions.
The Code of Civil Procedure of 2015 listed in the items of article 1.015 the hypotheses for the appeal of an interlocutory appeal. However, decisions arose interlocutory not provided for in the list of the article that deserve to be protected immediately, under supervening loss of the object, if any occurred discussed only in the preliminary Appeal. In view of the context, doubts arose as to whether this was the best interpretation for the items of the article. Doctrine and jurisprudence diverged on the subject and three theses of greater strength. The first claimed that the role was closed, not admitting interpretations, while the second, defended the idea that the role admitted extensive interpretation and the third current understood that the role was closed, but admitted extensive interpretation. In order to pacify the issue, the Superior Court of Justice, in the context of a Special Appeal, decided by the mitigated interpretation of the items of the article. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to understand what has actually changed with the new understanding, as well as what are the new limits of interposition of instrument in interlocutory decisions.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
agravo de instrumento , taxatividade mitigada , artigo 1.015 CPC , alcance da interpretação , interlocutory appeal , mitigated taxativity , article 1.015 CPC , scope of interpretation