Direitos individuais homogêneos: elementos para uma definição em dois planos

• Ano de defesa: 2021
• Autor(a) principal: Funck, Flávia Bornéo
• Orientador(a): Vitorelli, Edilson
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Católica de Brasília
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa Stricto Sensu em Direito
• Departamento: Escola de Humanidades, Negócios e Direito
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Tutela coletiva; Direito processual civil; Direitos individuais homogêneos
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Individual homogenous rights; Procedural law; Class actions
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO
• Link de acesso: https://bdtd.ucb.br:8443/jspui/handle/tede/2878

This study is based on the hypothesis that there is a conceptual gap concerning “individual homogenous rights”, one of the types of rights discussed in Brazilian class actions, with implications in the adjudication process, affecting, also, the purposes for which these rights were designed. Thus, it aims at presenting elements which might contribute to a clearer delimitation of such rights, as to improve the operation and cohesion of the collective redress system. In order to do so, the conceptual problem is made explicit and then positioned in relation to the so-called dichotomous plans of substancial law and procedural law. This is followed by a historical-dogmatic review of the classification of individual homogenous rights in relation to the other categories laid down in article 81, sole paragraph of the Consumer Protection Code (“diffuse rights” and “collective rights”), suggesting that such classification be relocated among them. A jurimetric study is then presented, seeking to identify common misleads and to characterize the procedural core concerning individual homogenous rights. Finally, it analizes its main adjudication phases and peculiarities. The initial hypothesis is confirmed as crucial aspects are pointed out in terms of the conceptual gap implying individual homogenous rights, especially its confusion with pre-trial issues (slowing down the process) and the invisibility of a common issue or claim regarding injunctive or declaratory relief prior to its legal remedy (jeopardizing legal certainty and equity).