Tendência universal de sumarização do processo civil e a busca da tutela de urgência proporcional

• Autor(a) principal: Zanferdini, Flávia de Almeida Montingelli
• Data de Publicação: 2007
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
• Texto Completo: https://tede2.pucsp.br/handle/handle/7797
• topic: Sumarização; Processo civil -- Brasil; Tutela antecipada -- Brasil; Summarization; CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO::DIREITO PRIVADO::DIREITO CIVIL

The work analyzes the strong and growing tendency of summarization of the contemporary civil process. It starts from the premise that it is necessary to reconcile safety and velocity, being known that this challenge is one that more urges the contemporary procedure experts. To face the multiple subjects that elapse of that tendency, it initially presents the more frequently means used to summarize the procedures. It presents, likewise, the reasons that lead to that growing summarizing tendency, which are the increment of the access to the justice and the increase of the number of actions that are not proportional to the judiciary apparatus. It still discourses about the need to look for mechanisms to accomplish the constitutional warranty of judgement in reasonable term and defends that one cannot, in that search to reconcile velocity and safety, to do without of counterbalance mechanisms, denominated regulatory mechanisms. It exposes the existent regulation mechanisms in the domestic legal system and those used at other countries, suggesting modifications in the national legislation. It objects, with vehemence, to the idea that the velocity search at any cost is an ideal to be pursued. It therefore disagrees of the dominant conceptions that accept that the safety gives up front to the urgency, given the social demands and that understand to be the inherent risk to the need of distribution of the procedural time. It presents a panorama of the provisional remedies in Brazil and in other countries chosen as paradigms − Argentina, Spain, Italy and Portugal − and defends that the provisional remedies should be proportional, or in other words, that they cannot cause the defendant more damages than the benefits that are granted to the author, suggesting therefore some modifications in the law, as well as the strict obedience to the principle of the proportionality in such cases. At the end, it analyzes bills that alter dispositions on the provisional remedies in Argentina, Brasil and Italy, defending, still, a better regulation of the matter in our country