As razões de flexibilização dos efeitos da decisão de Inconstitucionalidade

• Autor(a) principal: Cabral, Michelle Freire
• Data de Publicação: 2008
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo (riUfes)
• Texto Completo: http://repositorio.ufes.br/handle/10/2684
• topic: Constitution; Constitutional Jurisdiction; Constitutional Process; Judicial Review; Prospective effects; Unconstitutionality; Constituição; Jurisdição Constitucional; Processo constitucional; Efeito prospectivo; Inconstitucionalidade; Direito Processual Civil; Controle da constitucionalidade; Ação de inconstitucionalidade; Direito constitucional; 340

The study deals with the matter of the Supreme Court judicial review decision-making and its time effects modulation. It starts, in chapter one, an approach towards Constitutionalism and Constitution, emphasizing, between its characteristics, normative immortality and political unavailability. Later on, in chapter two, it introduces considerations towards Constitutional Jurisdiction and some models of judicial review in alien Law. It exposes all judicial review evolution and, mainly judicial review in Brazil, since the Empire’s Constitution to the end of the military period. It explains the actual 1988 Republican Constitution model. In chapter tree, it addresses some characteristics of the Constitutional Process, its parties, tools and premises, the effects of judicial review decision-making and, mainly, its time efficacy and the development in foreign Law of judicial review decision-making techniques and its justifications. It punctuates, in chapter four, the Supreme Court function as the guardian of the Constitution, under the vigilance of the Law # 9.868/99 and fixates the motives of judicial review decision-making gelatinization and time efficacy modulation in the National Judicial System. Various methods were used to develop such work. They are: the historical; the juridical-comparative; the dogmatic and the argumentative. It concludes that the invalidity of an unconstitutional law is a Constitutional Principle, but may be rejected when in confrontation with some other superior constitutional principle.