A carregar...
Publicação
Delimitação semântica do conceito de erro judiciário e sua responsabilidade civil : investigação realizada mediante estudo comparativo entre o direito brasileiro e o direito portugês
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.19 MB | Adobe PDF |
Autores
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
O presente trabalho visa à delimitação semântica do conceito de erro judiciário e seus efeitos civis. Há imprecisão sobre o assunto e isto causa instabilidade jurídica. Com frequência, o senso comum atribui o estigma de erro judiciário em casos que sequer tiveram a atuação jurisdicional, o que não contribui para aprimoramento do tema. Aliado a isso, não se tem feito estudo sistemático do erro judiciário e sua relação com a responsabilidade civil do Poder Judiciário, sobretudo no Brasil. Na verdade, o erro judiciário é a chave para elucidação da responsabilidade civil por atos jurisdicionais. O conceito do erro judiciário, contudo, não pode ser ampliado em demasia, sob pena de violar o binômio “responsabilidade-independência” e, com isso, comprometer a função social do Poder Judiciário. O Judiciário é agente concretizador e mantenedor do Estado Democrático de Direito, e não meramente a “escravo da lei”. Não bastasse isso, o alargamento inconsequente do conceito de erro judiciário pode afetar o Erário e, por conseguinte, a própria sociedade, titular da “res publica”. É preciso um ponto de equilíbrio entre responsabilidade e independência na atuação do Judiciário, conciliando-os. O erro judiciário pode ser de fato ou de direito. Erro judiciário de direito é a decisão manifestamente contrária às regras e princípios jurídicos. O erro de fato é a decisão absolutamente oposta à prova judicial. O erro judiciário deve ser interpretado restritivamente e aferido com objetividade. Sua constatação não deve se basear em juízos de valor. Erro judiciário é o erro crasso, palmar, evidente; é a “aberratio decisum” ou “error intolerabilis”. A decisão judicial razoável elide à configuração do erro judiciário. A indenização do erro judiciário está condicionada aos seguintes requisitos: a) ato jurisdicional ilícito, b) erro judiciário, c) dano injusto, especial e anormal, e d) nexo de causalidade entre ato jurisdicional e dano injusto, especial e anormal. Mais importante do que reparar o erro judiciário é sua prevenção. Para desenvolvimento da pesquisa, foi feita uma abordagem filosófica, a partir da teoria da decisão, como foi também empreendido estudo comparativo entre o Direito Brasileiro e o Direito Português.
This work aims at the semantic delimitation of the concept of miscarriage of justice and its civil effects. There is certain vagueness on this matter and this produces some legal instability. Often, common sense says that there was a miscarriage of justice even in cases where there was not even an action of the judge, and this does not contribute to the improvement of the subject. Moreover, there is not systematic research about miscarriage of justice and its relation to the civil liability of the Judiciary, especially in Brazil. Indeed, the miscarriage of justice is the key to elucidating the civil liability for judicial acts. The idea about miscarriage of justice, however, cannot be extended too much, without affecting the binomial "responsibilityindependence" and thereby undermine the social function of the Judiciary. The Judiciary concretizes and preserves the The Rule of Law, without being a “slave of the law”. Besides, the reckless extension of the concept of miscarriage of justice can affect the Treasure and, therefore, society itself, owner of the "res publica". There must be balance between responsibility and independence in the performance of the judiciary, reconciling them. The miscarriage of justice can be “de facto” or “de jure”. Miscarriage of justice “de jure” occurs when the decision is clearly contrary to the rules and principles of Law. The miscarriage of justice “de facto” is the judicial decision absolutely contrary to the evidence and proofs of lawsuit. The miscarriage of justice must be strictly interpreted and objectively measured. This understanding should not be based on value judgments. Miscarriage of justice is a crass, palmar, obvious fault; it is the "aberratio decisum” or “error intolerability”. The reasonable judicial decision avoids the miscarriage of justice configuration. The reasonable judicial decision can not be considered miscarriage of justice. For the indemnization of the mistrial there are some necessary requirements: a) illegal judicial act, b) miscarriage of justice, c) unfair, special and unusual damage, and d) the link of cause and effect between act and the unjust, special and unusual damage. More important than repairing the miscarriage of justice is its prevention. For to development of the present research, a philosophical approach about the "Theory of the Judicial Decision" was made, as well as a comparative study between the Law of Brazil and that of Portugal.
This work aims at the semantic delimitation of the concept of miscarriage of justice and its civil effects. There is certain vagueness on this matter and this produces some legal instability. Often, common sense says that there was a miscarriage of justice even in cases where there was not even an action of the judge, and this does not contribute to the improvement of the subject. Moreover, there is not systematic research about miscarriage of justice and its relation to the civil liability of the Judiciary, especially in Brazil. Indeed, the miscarriage of justice is the key to elucidating the civil liability for judicial acts. The idea about miscarriage of justice, however, cannot be extended too much, without affecting the binomial "responsibilityindependence" and thereby undermine the social function of the Judiciary. The Judiciary concretizes and preserves the The Rule of Law, without being a “slave of the law”. Besides, the reckless extension of the concept of miscarriage of justice can affect the Treasure and, therefore, society itself, owner of the "res publica". There must be balance between responsibility and independence in the performance of the judiciary, reconciling them. The miscarriage of justice can be “de facto” or “de jure”. Miscarriage of justice “de jure” occurs when the decision is clearly contrary to the rules and principles of Law. The miscarriage of justice “de facto” is the judicial decision absolutely contrary to the evidence and proofs of lawsuit. The miscarriage of justice must be strictly interpreted and objectively measured. This understanding should not be based on value judgments. Miscarriage of justice is a crass, palmar, obvious fault; it is the "aberratio decisum” or “error intolerability”. The reasonable judicial decision avoids the miscarriage of justice configuration. The reasonable judicial decision can not be considered miscarriage of justice. For the indemnization of the mistrial there are some necessary requirements: a) illegal judicial act, b) miscarriage of justice, c) unfair, special and unusual damage, and d) the link of cause and effect between act and the unjust, special and unusual damage. More important than repairing the miscarriage of justice is its prevention. For to development of the present research, a philosophical approach about the "Theory of the Judicial Decision" was made, as well as a comparative study between the Law of Brazil and that of Portugal.
Descrição
Tese de doutoramento, Direito (Ciências Jurídico-Políticas), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Direito, 2017
Palavras-chave
Teses de doutoramento - 2017