Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o
Ano de defesa: | 2013 |
---|---|
Autor(a) principal: | |
Orientador(a): | |
Banca de defesa: | |
Tipo de documento: | Tese |
Tipo de acesso: | Acesso aberto |
Idioma: | por |
Instituição de defesa: |
Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul
|
Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Direito
|
Departamento: |
Faculdade de Direito
|
País: |
BR
|
Palavras-chave em Português: | |
Área do conhecimento CNPq: | |
Link de acesso: | http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/4206 |
Resumo: | This study investigates whether or not there is the occurrence of prescription of rights with diffuse object in Brazilian legal system. It also goes from protection of individual rights to transindividual rights, establishing the pillars of the protection of individual rights in Modernity, the main features of the jurisdictional liberal State and the transindividual rights, making a comparison among them. It presents a debate about the decadence in the classification theory of subjective rights formulated by Chiovenda and its adoption by Amorim Filho. It also addresses the relationship between law and procedure in Chiovenda, based on the thesis L Azione nel sistema della tutela dei diritti (1903), in which the Italian author presented a classification of subjective rights (to provisions and to potestatives), which served as the basis for the elaboration of Amorim Filho s criteria to distinguish between prescription and decadence, in his recognized article of 1961. Furthermore, this study examines the consequences of Amorim Filho`s dissertation in the subsequent doctrine and in the Brazilian Civil Code of 2002, pointing out some criticism guided by the need for proper understanding of the binomial law and process and the jurisdictional protection of transindividuals. It also goes back to the genesis of the "interessi legitimi" concept in the Italian doctrine as an attempt to substantiate "interessi colletivi e diffusi", and the transposition of this concept to the Brazilian legal system. This study defends that the phenomenon of rights with diffuse object must be thought from an objective perspective of fundamental rights and duties, as well as the application of objective Law. It claims that the adequate protection of the so-called diffuse rights demands rethinking and resizing several classical institutes of material law (and procedural law), because several of them were thought out to operate - and can only operate properly - at the individual level, having reduced or no function at the collective level, something which was proposed to be done with the institute of prescription, due to the fact that in the rights with diffuse object there is no subjective right, claim and law-suit in material law. Absence of those three central positions belonging to the material law level, especially about claim, leaves the prescription institute with no function in the collective level. In this scenario, it is concluded that there was no prescription on the rights with diffuse object |
id |
P_RS_14a33dd16fdc62ca6d077c666fb75e1e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:tede2.pucrs.br:tede/4206 |
network_acronym_str |
P_RS |
network_name_str |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Tesheiner, Jos? Maria RosaCPF:00148431020http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4703605P4CPF:74776894068http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4583292E8Santos, Rodrigo Coimbra2015-04-14T14:33:57Z2013-01-312013-01-10SANTOS, Rodrigo Coimbra. Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o. 2013. 45 f. Tese (Doutorado em Direito) - Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2013.http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/4206This study investigates whether or not there is the occurrence of prescription of rights with diffuse object in Brazilian legal system. It also goes from protection of individual rights to transindividual rights, establishing the pillars of the protection of individual rights in Modernity, the main features of the jurisdictional liberal State and the transindividual rights, making a comparison among them. It presents a debate about the decadence in the classification theory of subjective rights formulated by Chiovenda and its adoption by Amorim Filho. It also addresses the relationship between law and procedure in Chiovenda, based on the thesis L Azione nel sistema della tutela dei diritti (1903), in which the Italian author presented a classification of subjective rights (to provisions and to potestatives), which served as the basis for the elaboration of Amorim Filho s criteria to distinguish between prescription and decadence, in his recognized article of 1961. Furthermore, this study examines the consequences of Amorim Filho`s dissertation in the subsequent doctrine and in the Brazilian Civil Code of 2002, pointing out some criticism guided by the need for proper understanding of the binomial law and process and the jurisdictional protection of transindividuals. It also goes back to the genesis of the "interessi legitimi" concept in the Italian doctrine as an attempt to substantiate "interessi colletivi e diffusi", and the transposition of this concept to the Brazilian legal system. This study defends that the phenomenon of rights with diffuse object must be thought from an objective perspective of fundamental rights and duties, as well as the application of objective Law. It claims that the adequate protection of the so-called diffuse rights demands rethinking and resizing several classical institutes of material law (and procedural law), because several of them were thought out to operate - and can only operate properly - at the individual level, having reduced or no function at the collective level, something which was proposed to be done with the institute of prescription, due to the fact that in the rights with diffuse object there is no subjective right, claim and law-suit in material law. Absence of those three central positions belonging to the material law level, especially about claim, leaves the prescription institute with no function in the collective level. In this scenario, it is concluded that there was no prescription on the rights with diffuse objectNeste trabalho, investiga-se a ocorr?ncia ou n?o de prescri??o nos direitos com objeto difuso no ordenamento jur?dico brasileiro. Percorre-se o caminho da tutela de direitos individuais ? tutela de direitos transindividuais, estabelecendo os pilares da tutela de direitos individuais na Modernidade, as principais caracter?sticas da tutela jurisdicional no Estado liberal e dos direitos transindividuais, comparando-as. Debate-se a respeito da prescri??o e da decad?ncia na teoria classificat?ria dos direitos subjetivos formulada por Chiovenda e na sua ado??o por Amorim Filho. Abordam-se as rela??es entre direito e processo em Chiovenda, com base no ensaio L Azione nel sistema della tutela dei diritti, proferido em 1903, no qual o autor italiano apresenta uma classifica??o dos direitos subjetivos (a uma presta??o e potestativos) que serve de base para a elabora??o dos crit?rios distintivos entre prescri??o e decad?ncia de Amorim Filho, no seu reconhecido artigo de 1961. Examinam-se os reflexos da tese de Amorim Filho na doutrina posterior e no C?digo Civil brasileiro de 2002, bem como apontam-se algumas cr?ticas norteadas pela necessidade de adequada compreens?o do bin?mio direito e processo e da tutela jurisdicional dos direitos transindividuais. Remonta-se ? g?nese do conceito de interessi legitimi na doutrina italiana como tentativa de fundamentar interessi colletivi e diffusi e a transposi??o desse conceito para o ordenamento jur?dico brasileiro. Sustenta-se que o fen?meno dos direitos com objeto difuso deve ser pensado a partir da perspectiva objetiva dos direitos e dos deveres fundamentais, bem como da aplica??o do Direito objetivo. Defende-se que a adequada tutela dos chamados direitos difusos exige redimensionar e repensar v?rios institutos cl?ssicos do direito material (e do direito processual), porquanto muitos deles foram imaginados para operar e somente conseguem operar adequadamente no plano individual, tendo reduzida ou nenhuma fun??o no plano coletivo, o que se prop?s a fazer com o instituto da prescri??o, pois, nos direitos com objeto difuso, n?o h? direito subjetivo, pretens?o e a??o no plano de direito material. N?o havendo essas tr?s posi??es nucleares do plano de direito material, especialmente a pretens?o, o instituto da prescri??o fica sem fun??o no plano coletivo. Nesse cen?rio, conclui-se pela inexist?ncia de prescri??o nos direitos com objeto difuso.Made available in DSpace on 2015-04-14T14:33:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 445296.pdf: 374411 bytes, checksum: dfc3fc46b2da053e3d3fef1ddf0195af (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-01-10application/pdfhttp://tede2.pucrs.br:80/tede2/retrieve/14381/445296.pdf.jpgporPontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do SulPrograma de P?s-Gradua??o em DireitoPUCRSBRFaculdade de DireitoDIREITOS FUNDAMENTAISPRESCRI??O (DIREITO)PROCESSO COLETIVOINTERESSES DIFUSOS (DIREITO)CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITOOs direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??oinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis-10466298559371193025006002194221341323903125info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RSinstname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)instacron:PUC_RSTHUMBNAIL445296.pdf.jpg445296.pdf.jpgimage/jpeg2625http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/bitstream/tede/4206/3/445296.pdf.jpg073d2064b0aa1b623a07196e095f598bMD53TEXT445296.pdf.txt445296.pdf.txttext/plain77775http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/bitstream/tede/4206/2/445296.pdf.txt3dabbd84f9d4870ffdafb42c8a9c411eMD52ORIGINAL445296.pdfapplication/pdf374411http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/bitstream/tede/4206/1/445296.pdfdfc3fc46b2da053e3d3fef1ddf0195afMD51tede/42062015-04-30 08:15:40.871oai:tede2.pucrs.br:tede/4206Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertaçõeshttp://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/PRIhttps://tede2.pucrs.br/oai/requestbiblioteca.central@pucrs.br||opendoar:2015-04-30T11:15:40Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS)false |
dc.title.por.fl_str_mv |
Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o |
title |
Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o |
spellingShingle |
Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o Santos, Rodrigo Coimbra DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS PRESCRI??O (DIREITO) PROCESSO COLETIVO INTERESSES DIFUSOS (DIREITO) CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO |
title_short |
Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o |
title_full |
Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o |
title_fullStr |
Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o |
title_full_unstemmed |
Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o |
title_sort |
Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o |
author |
Santos, Rodrigo Coimbra |
author_facet |
Santos, Rodrigo Coimbra |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.advisor1.fl_str_mv |
Tesheiner, Jos? Maria Rosa |
dc.contributor.advisor1ID.fl_str_mv |
CPF:00148431020 |
dc.contributor.advisor1Lattes.fl_str_mv |
http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4703605P4 |
dc.contributor.authorID.fl_str_mv |
CPF:74776894068 |
dc.contributor.authorLattes.fl_str_mv |
http://buscatextual.cnpq.br/buscatextual/visualizacv.do?id=K4583292E8 |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Santos, Rodrigo Coimbra |
contributor_str_mv |
Tesheiner, Jos? Maria Rosa |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS PRESCRI??O (DIREITO) PROCESSO COLETIVO INTERESSES DIFUSOS (DIREITO) |
topic |
DIREITOS FUNDAMENTAIS PRESCRI??O (DIREITO) PROCESSO COLETIVO INTERESSES DIFUSOS (DIREITO) CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO |
dc.subject.cnpq.fl_str_mv |
CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO |
description |
This study investigates whether or not there is the occurrence of prescription of rights with diffuse object in Brazilian legal system. It also goes from protection of individual rights to transindividual rights, establishing the pillars of the protection of individual rights in Modernity, the main features of the jurisdictional liberal State and the transindividual rights, making a comparison among them. It presents a debate about the decadence in the classification theory of subjective rights formulated by Chiovenda and its adoption by Amorim Filho. It also addresses the relationship between law and procedure in Chiovenda, based on the thesis L Azione nel sistema della tutela dei diritti (1903), in which the Italian author presented a classification of subjective rights (to provisions and to potestatives), which served as the basis for the elaboration of Amorim Filho s criteria to distinguish between prescription and decadence, in his recognized article of 1961. Furthermore, this study examines the consequences of Amorim Filho`s dissertation in the subsequent doctrine and in the Brazilian Civil Code of 2002, pointing out some criticism guided by the need for proper understanding of the binomial law and process and the jurisdictional protection of transindividuals. It also goes back to the genesis of the "interessi legitimi" concept in the Italian doctrine as an attempt to substantiate "interessi colletivi e diffusi", and the transposition of this concept to the Brazilian legal system. This study defends that the phenomenon of rights with diffuse object must be thought from an objective perspective of fundamental rights and duties, as well as the application of objective Law. It claims that the adequate protection of the so-called diffuse rights demands rethinking and resizing several classical institutes of material law (and procedural law), because several of them were thought out to operate - and can only operate properly - at the individual level, having reduced or no function at the collective level, something which was proposed to be done with the institute of prescription, due to the fact that in the rights with diffuse object there is no subjective right, claim and law-suit in material law. Absence of those three central positions belonging to the material law level, especially about claim, leaves the prescription institute with no function in the collective level. In this scenario, it is concluded that there was no prescription on the rights with diffuse object |
publishDate |
2013 |
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv |
2013-01-31 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2013-01-10 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2015-04-14T14:33:57Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/doctoralThesis |
format |
doctoralThesis |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.citation.fl_str_mv |
SANTOS, Rodrigo Coimbra. Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o. 2013. 45 f. Tese (Doutorado em Direito) - Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2013. |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/4206 |
identifier_str_mv |
SANTOS, Rodrigo Coimbra. Os direitos com objeto difuso e a prescri??o. 2013. 45 f. Tese (Doutorado em Direito) - Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, 2013. |
url |
http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/4206 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.program.fl_str_mv |
-1046629855937119302 |
dc.relation.confidence.fl_str_mv |
500 600 |
dc.relation.department.fl_str_mv |
2194221341323903125 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul |
dc.publisher.program.fl_str_mv |
Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Direito |
dc.publisher.initials.fl_str_mv |
PUCRS |
dc.publisher.country.fl_str_mv |
BR |
dc.publisher.department.fl_str_mv |
Faculdade de Direito |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Pontif?cia Universidade Cat?lica do Rio Grande do Sul |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS instname:Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) instacron:PUC_RS |
instname_str |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) |
instacron_str |
PUC_RS |
institution |
PUC_RS |
reponame_str |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS |
collection |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS |
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv |
http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/bitstream/tede/4206/3/445296.pdf.jpg http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/bitstream/tede/4206/2/445296.pdf.txt http://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/bitstream/tede/4206/1/445296.pdf |
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv |
073d2064b0aa1b623a07196e095f598b 3dabbd84f9d4870ffdafb42c8a9c411e dfc3fc46b2da053e3d3fef1ddf0195af |
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv |
MD5 MD5 MD5 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_RS - Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
biblioteca.central@pucrs.br|| |
_version_ |
1796793201317642240 |