Mestrado em Direito Processual

URI Permanente para esta coleção

http://repositorio.ufes.br/handle/10/17546

Nível: Mestrado Acadêmico
Ano de início: 2006
Conceito atual na CAPES: 4
Ato normativo: Homologado pelo CNE (Port. MEC 946 de 29/11/2021). Publicado no DOU 30/11/2021, seç. 1, p. 63. Parecer CNE/CES nº 499/2017.
Periodicidade de seleção: Semestral
Área(s) de concentração: Justiça, Processo e Constituição
Url do curso: https://direito.ufes.br/pt-br/pos-graduacao/PPGDIR/detalhes-do-curso?id=1512

Navegar

Agora exibindo 1 - 5 de 337

Ações possessórias : fundamento e pedido como instrumentos do transporte de técnicas processuais
(Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, 2025-05-27) Pires, Mariah Ferrari; Co-orientador1; https://orcid.org/; http://lattes.cnpq.br/; Orientador1; https://orcid.org/; http://lattes.cnpq.br/; https://orcid.org/; http://lattes.cnpq.br/; 1º membro da banca; https://orcid.org/; http://lattes.cnpq.br/; 2º membro da banca; https://orcid.org/; http://lattes.cnpq.br/; 3º membro da banca; https://orcid.org/; http://lattes.cnpq.br/
This dissertation aimed to analyze possessory actions from the perspective of the elements of cause of action and relief sought, with the objective of understanding how such elements relate to the transposition and adaptation of procedural techniques within the scope of the 2015 Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (CPC/2015). This subject is closely linked to the area of concentration of the PPGDIR at UFES, particularly regarding of Existential and Patr ensuring the effectiveness of jurisdiction in contemporary contexts. The study stemmed from the question of how the techniques provided for the handling of possessory actions may be applied to other types of claims that do not have possession as their sole foundation, but which share certain objectives or procedural structures with them. The purpose of the investigation was to demonstrate that the enhancement of procedural techniques, as opposed to procedural rigidity, allows for greater flexibility and adaptability of procedural forms to the concrete needs of the parties, thereby enabling the transposition of such techniques to atypical or collective claims. The theory of procedural techniques was used as the structuring core of the analysis, with particular attention to the proposal of overcoming the dichotomy between actions and procedures, as well as to a constitutionally oriented interpretation of civil procedure. The dissertation was based on bibliographic review and dogmatic analysis of the current legislation, with emphasis on the provisions of the CPC/2015 concerning possessory actions, along with case law study. The research drew on classical and contemporary legal doctrine on possession and property, the main Brazilian procedural codes, decisions from higher courts, and relevant legislative materials. It was concluded that the special techniques provided for possessory proceedings such as the granting of preliminary injunctions based on summary cognition, mediation hearings in mass litigation, and the fungibility among possessory remedies may be understood as instruments that go beyond the restricted domain of typical possessory actions. The research argues that CPC/2015 introduced a logic of procedural flexibility centered on the effectiveness of rights protection, shifting the focus from procedural forms to procedural functions. Therefore, the transposition of procedural techniques from possessory actions to other claims constitutes a movement consistent with the principles of contemporary civil procedure, reaffirming the centrality of technique as an instrument for the realization of law and justice
A dificuldade na superação de precedentes em razão da restrição de admissibilidade prevista pelo art. 1.030 do CPC/15 com a redação dada pela Lei 13.256/2016
(Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, 2025-05-27) Giuberti, Douglas Puziol; Jeveaux, Geovany Cardoso ; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1835-6737; http://lattes.cnpq.br/0864752123654928; https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1305-8816; http://lattes.cnpq.br/0152170292981614; Dias, Ricardo Gueiros Bernardes ; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1917-5284; http://lattes.cnpq.br/7071302456614853; Freire Júnior, Américo Bedê ; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0128-8790; http://lattes.cnpq.br/0136827472164962
This master dissertation examines the difficulty of overcoming binding precedents within the Brazilian legal system due to the restriction imposed by Article 1.030 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 2015, as amended by Law No. 13.256/2016. The research begins with a comparative analysis between the classical doctrine of stare decisis, characteristic of common law countries, and the normative precedent model adopted by the 2015 CPC. It then explores the tension between jurisprudential stability and flexibility, the possible dynamics of precedent overruling (and its variations), and the theoretical grounds that justify such revision. The core focus lies in the procedural barrier created by the denial of follow-up by local courts to extraordinary appeals that challenge binding precedents, as well as in the procedural limits and strategies available to litigants to trigger the revision of the applied thesis, thus enabling access to the superior courts and the reopening of the legal debate surrounding the precedent. The study questions whether this model of admissibility is compatible with the integrity of a precedent-based system and with the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations, and access to justice—especially in light of the constitutional jurisdiction conferred upon the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice to ensure the uniform interpretation of constitutional and infraconstitutional law in Brazil
Acesso à justiça e tutela previdenciária
(Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, 2025-05-28) Lima, Raphaela Fernanda Cruz de Sousa; Zaneti Junior, Hermes; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6461-6742; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5343355826023519; https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0650-3669; http://lattes.cnpq.br/2182826254940087; Rocha, Cláudio Iannotti da; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2379-2488; http://lattes.cnpq.br/6857649862156269; Siqueira, Thiago Ferreira; http://lattes.cnpq.br/1377110680976833; Maia, Maurílio Casas; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8945-0101; http://lattes.cnpq.br/2943453195405530
This research investigates access to justice within the Brazilian social security system, focusing on the requirement of prior administrative request as a condition for initiating lawsuits against the INSS. It analyzes the impact of this requirement on vulnerable individuals, in light of Supreme Federal Court (STF) Topic 350, and its effects on effective access to justice. The methodology includes literature review, document analysis, and an empirical study of the judicialization of social security claims. The study examines the influence of Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth's renovatory waves on access to justice in Brazil, with an emphasis on the third wave, and compares this approach with the requirement of the INSS administrative phase, established in Extraordinary Appeal 631.240/MG. The research evaluates whether this procedural condition facilitates or obstructs access to justice, particularly for the most vulnerable. The analysis of Extraordinary Appeal 631.240/MG, in light of the theory of precedents, explores its ratio decidendi and the chain of subsequent rulings in the STF and STJ. It also investigates whether the INSS administrative phase can be an instrument for implementing social security rights or if it represents an obstacle to the realization of social rights. The results indicate that, although the administrative requirement aims at dejudicialization and system rationalization, it has created significant barriers to access to justice, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The research proposes interpretative alternatives to make this administrative phase more flexible, based on the theory of precedents and the principle of protection for the vulnerable, in order to ensure effective access to justice.
Efetividade e adequação dos métodos autocompositivos em diferentes espécies de conflitos sob a perspectiva da Justiça Multiportas
(Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, 2025-01-01) Borges, Júlia Barros Leão; Mazzei, Rodrigo Reis; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0745-0461; http://lattes.cnpq.br/9840880011538012; https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4827-1956; http://lattes.cnpq.br/9315660095764632; Gonçalves, Tiago Figueiredo; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-3567; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5320780300394578; Hill, Flávia Pereira; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5431-9154; http://lattes.cnpq.br/0741858356618963
abstract
Decisões parciais de mérito e decisões parciais sobre questões de mérito no código de processo civil de 2015
(Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, 2025-05-12) Ramos, Alexandre de Oliveira Miranda; Siqueira, Thiago Ferreira; https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1763-2234; http://lattes.cnpq.br/1377110680976833; https://orcid.org/0009-0006-9027-9771; http://lattes.cnpq.br/7158061497123455; Gonçalves, Tiago Figueiredo; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4064-3567; http://lattes.cnpq.br/5320780300394578; Barcellos, Daniela Silva Fontoura de; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5795-9250; http://lattes.cnpq.br/8553580356547143
This thesis investigates partial judgments on the merits as conceived by the legislature in Brazil’s 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, with particular emphasis on Articles 354 and 356 of the Codex. It addresses the general assumptions, the specific requirements for the application of this procedural technique, and the procedural stages in which it may be employed. Furthermore, the study seeks to highlight the legal repercussions of fragmenting the adjudication of the merits into distinct judicial rulings, particularly with regard to other institutes of procedural law, such as appeals, the formation of res judicata, actions for relief from judgment, and the enforcement of judgments. Under the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure, despite ongoing doctrinal and jurisprudential debate, the prevailing understanding was that the Code adhered to the dogma of the unity or structural indivisibility of the judgment, thereby precluding the fragmentation of the merits’ adjudication throughout the course of the proceedings. The 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, in contrast, expressly allows for the adjudication of the merits to be rendered in parts during the procedural flow. In this context, through a qualitative approach grounded in a literature review of legal literature and judicial precedents, the thesis aims to systematize the assumptions, requirements, and legal consequences associated with the adoption of partial judgments on the merits. Finally, the research also addresses aspects related to issues of merit: how they may be identified in the pleadings, how their resolution unfolds during the course of the proceedings, whether they allow for segmented resolution throughout the process, and the legal consequences arising therefrom. This research aligns with Research Line 2 of the UFES Graduate Program in Law (PPGDIR/UFES): Procedure, Techniques, and the Protection of Existential and Patrimonial Rights, insofar as it examines the technique of partial adjudication of the merits and its implications for the procedural legal order, as a tool aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of judicial protection of patrimonial and existential rights. It is hoped that, through this study, the use of this technique will be more broadly disseminated within the legal community, particularly in the field of civil litigation.

Navegar

Submissões Recentes