| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.63 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Inserido e delineado no contexto da cognição processual, o direito à prova, no qual se insere a prova pela presunção, é essencial para a efetiva tutela do direito material em juízo. É pela prova, voltada para a apuração das alegações de fato deduzidas pelas partes, que a presunção opera. Ela atua sobre e para a prova, especificamente na formação do convencimento do juiz. A presunção é, para nós, um método de prova, e não um meio de prova. Fixado no processo o fato indiciário, parte-se dele e, através de uma inferência, chega-se à prova do fato presumido. A presunção é esse meio lógico ou mental de descoberta do fato presumido, firmada pela lei ou pelo juiz no caso concreto. Ela é a inferência que guia o juiz ao alcance de um fato desconhecido. Liga-se à insuficiência da percepção direta em matéria de prova. À vista do fato conhecido, a lei ou o juiz, normalmente com base no id quod plerumque accidit, extraem dos indícios determinadas consequências fáticas. Em regra, são as máximas da experiência que amoldam esse nexo lógico inerente a toda presunção. São elas que dão concretude à ilação presuntiva, tornando-a, antes de tudo, um exercício de racionalidade no processo. Se o nexo lógico é a pedra de toque da presunção, a máxima da experiência o é do nexo lógico. É ela o anel de conjunção entre o fato indiciário e a conclusão dele retirada – com base no que ordinariamente acontece – para a formação da convicção do juiz sobre os fatos relevantes para a solução da lide.
Inserted and outlined in the context of procedural cognition, the right to proof, which incorporates the proof by presumption, is essential for the effective protection of material right in the court. The presumption operates by the proof, facing the verification of the factual allegations deducted by the parties. It acts on and for the proof, specifically by forming the conviction of the judge. The presumption is for us a method of proof, and not a way to the proof. Set in the process, it starts from the indiciary fact and through an inference, one comes to the proof of the presumed fact. The presumption is such logical or mental way to look for the presumed fact, signed by the law or by the judge in the concrete case. It is the inference that guide the judge to reach an unknown fact. It is associated to the insufficiency of the direct perception regarding proof. In view of the known fact, the law or the judge, usually based on the id quod plerumque accidit, extract from the indications certain factual consequences. As a rule, the highest levels of experience shape this logical connection inherent to any presumption. They provide concreteness to the presumptive inference, making it firstly an exercise of rationality in the process. If the logical link is the touchstone of the presumption, the background knowledge is the logical link. It is the ring of conjunction between the evidentiary fact and the conclusion that arises from it - based on what ordinarily happens – to form the conviction of the judge on the relevant facts for the solution of the dispute.
Inserted and outlined in the context of procedural cognition, the right to proof, which incorporates the proof by presumption, is essential for the effective protection of material right in the court. The presumption operates by the proof, facing the verification of the factual allegations deducted by the parties. It acts on and for the proof, specifically by forming the conviction of the judge. The presumption is for us a method of proof, and not a way to the proof. Set in the process, it starts from the indiciary fact and through an inference, one comes to the proof of the presumed fact. The presumption is such logical or mental way to look for the presumed fact, signed by the law or by the judge in the concrete case. It is the inference that guide the judge to reach an unknown fact. It is associated to the insufficiency of the direct perception regarding proof. In view of the known fact, the law or the judge, usually based on the id quod plerumque accidit, extract from the indications certain factual consequences. As a rule, the highest levels of experience shape this logical connection inherent to any presumption. They provide concreteness to the presumptive inference, making it firstly an exercise of rationality in the process. If the logical link is the touchstone of the presumption, the background knowledge is the logical link. It is the ring of conjunction between the evidentiary fact and the conclusion that arises from it - based on what ordinarily happens – to form the conviction of the judge on the relevant facts for the solution of the dispute.
Description
Keywords
Processo civil Prova Presunção Teses de mestrado - 2015