O sistema de precedentes obrigatórios no Código de Processo Civil de 2015

• Autor(a) principal: Domingueti, Newton Neiva de Figueiredo
• Data de Publicação: 2018
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/27196
• topic: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL; Doutrina dos Precedentes; Civil law; Commom law; Código de Processo Civil de 2015; Pprecedent system (doctrine of stare decisis); Civil Law; Commom law; Brazilian Civil Procedure Rules

This paper presents a historical analysis of the system of precedents, since the adoption by commom law, as well as its wide use by the civil law system. It has been verified that with the entry into force of the Civil Procedure Code of 2015, the precedent system (doctrine of stare decisis), which had already been introduced gradually in our procedural system (since 1973 with uniformity of jurisprudence, later in 1994, with the possibility of appeal against a divergence decision that differ from the position of STJ / STF, with emphasis in 2004 through the creation of Binding Summaries, Binding Effects of decisions in ADI, culminating, in 2006, with the creation of the General Repercussion, Repetitive Resources, Possibility of Review of Binding Summaries) gained strength, providing the law that the Courts should seek integrity and consistency to the system. In the face of this imposition, we proceed to study and demonstrate that the system of precedents, despite seeking stability, has mechanisms of precedence overriding (prospective overrulling, distinguish, overriding, etc.), precisely to maintain confidence in the system. Wich leads us to conclude that, we are still in a civil law system, but that the adoption of the precedent system, if trying to impose coherence, predictability and reasonableness (especially with regard to the effectiveness / duration of the process) imposes great responsibility on the enforcers of law, which will be responsible for the success or failure of the proposed system