Repercussão geral

• Autor(a) principal: Vitorino, José Carlos
• Data de Publicação: 2012
• 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/34502
• topic: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PUBLICO::DIREITO PROCESSUAL CIVIL; Repercussão geral; Crise do supremo; Princípio do duplo grau de jurisdição; Rebound general; Crisis of the Supreme principle of double jurisdiction

General repercussion institute created by Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004 and Law 11418 of December 19, 2006, in the midst of crisis call of the Supreme. Crisis that had settled, at a time when society was demanding procedural celerity. Soon, with the bad image that was forming under the Brazilian Judiciary, the legislator sought to find some way to give an answer that met the desire of society. However, the form adopted by the legislator, was not as well received by the most authoritative doctrine, because many were critical in order to be mediated, unconstitutional. Also, while in theory the new institute brought speed up the process, ultimately restrict certain rights of jurisdicionado, such as the sealing of having known his appeal by the Supreme Court if the issue sub judice, no then present the institute created the general repercussion, ie, although the deal, was meeting with the Federal Constitution if the case does not extrapolasse limits of stakeholder, this feature will not be known by the STF and the jurisdicionado may be unanswered in its case. The current that defends this position states that, in the above example, this would be an affront to the principle of double jurisdiction, as would prevent the party from exercising his right to have his case reviewed by a higher court. However, on the other hand, those who argue that the institution of general repercussion, but is constitutional, argue that the institute was created, following the rigorous legislative process to amend the Constitution and passed a Constitutional Amendment, this text integrates the Constitutional equal footing. But could not the norm in question, harm the principle of double jurisdiction, therefore, the principle under discussion, jurisdicionado warrants to the review of their case by a higher court, but does not assure the right of a third or fourth instance, to determine its cause. So part of the doctrine that the Supreme Court understands, duty filter and judge only cases of interest relevant to society, or causes beyond the subjective interests of the parties