Aspectos controvertidos sobre compettncia, litispenddncia e coisa julgada no direito processual internacional (Controversial Aspects of Jurisdiction, Litis Pendens, Res Judicata and International Procedural Law)

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo Perlingeiro
Keyword(s):  
Procedural Law ◽  
Res Judicata

scholarly journals Theoretical approach of the main means of appeals in the European procedural law

2015 ◽  
Vol 87 (4) ◽  
pp. 2317-2333
Author(s):  
Oana M. Petrescu
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
Ancient Times ◽  
Civil Service Tribunal ◽  
Extraordinary Means

Knowledge and understanting the means of appeals lodged before the courts of the European Union, limited only to the points of law, are very important taking into accout the modality to control a judgment delivered by an inferior court exists since ancient times, being governed among others, by the Larin principle: res judicata pro veritate accipitur. In the following we will examine, in general, the judicial control of the judgments and orders delivered by the General Court and by the Civil Service Tribunal, as a specialized tribunal on civil servant issues, but also the sui generis means of appeals and the extraordinary means of reviews of the judgments and orders. We shall mention that all of them are exercised in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the European courts and the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Another aspect to be mentione is that the judjments of the Court of Justice cannot be challenged to another court, as they remain final and irrevocable.

scholarly journals A SENTENÇA DE MÉRITO PROLATADA COM A PRETERIÇÃO DO(S) LITISCONSORTE(S) NECESSÁRIO(S) UNITÁRIO(S): UMA ANÁLISE SOB A ÓTICA DOS PLANOS DOS ATOS PROCESSUAIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 220
Author(s):  
Lisiane Beatriz Fröhlich ◽  
Jonathan Iovane De Lemos
Keyword(s):  
Civil Procedure ◽  
The Other ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Moment

RESUMOO presente estudo tem como objetivo geral compreender em qual dos planos dos atos processuais – existência, validade ou eficácia – reside o defeito que acomete a sentença de mérito prolatada com a preterição do(s) litisconsorte(s) necessário(s) unitário(s). A partir dos resultados obtidos com a pesquisa, constatou-se que, para o alcance de uma conclusão satisfatória a seu respeito, é imprescindível a verificação do momento em que é alegada a preterição do(s) litisconsorte(s) necessário(s) unitário(s). Assim, concluiu-se que, na eventualidade de a alegação ocorrer anteriormente ao trânsito em julgado, o defeito estará situado no plano da validade, tratando-se de uma nulidade absoluta. Por outro lado, após o trânsito em julgado, o que remanesce é o vício no plano da eficácia. Dessa forma, observa-se que a atual legislação processual civil não é incorreta, mas incompleta e carente de precisão. Isso porque, apesar da superlativa importância da definição do momento em que se está analisando o vício, o Código de Processo Civil de 2015 é omisso com relação a esse aspecto, potencializando as dúvidas a respeito do tema. Por fim, verificou-se que, devido à gravidade do defeito que acomete essa sentença – oriunda, sobretudo, da ofensa aos princípios constitucionais –, é possível que qualquer interessado o alegue. Além disso, pelos mesmos motivos, as vias processuais admissíveis para combater esse vício são variadas, podendo ser manejada a ação rescisória, a impugnação ao cumprimento de sentença, a querela nullitatis insanabilis ou, ainda, qualquer outro meio idôneo e compatível com a situação concreta.Palavras-chave: Litisconsórcio necessário unitário. Sentença de mérito. Inexistência. Invalidade. Ineficácia. ABSTRACTThe purpose of the present study is to understand in which of the plans of procedural acts – existence, validity or efficacy – is situated the defect that affects the judgment of merit prolated with the pretermission of the necessary unitary collegitimate. From the results obtained with the research, it was verified that, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion about it, it is essential to verify the moment when is alleged the omission of the necessary unitary collegitimate. Thus, it was concluded that, if the claim occurs before it is formed the res judicata, the defect is situated in the validity plan, being an absolute nullity. On the other hand, after the res judicata is formed, what remains is the inefficacy. Therefore, it was verified that the current civil procedural law is not incorrect, but incomplete and lacking precision. This is because, in spite of the superlative importance of defining which moment the defect is being analyzed, the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code of 2015 do not consider this aspect, potentializing doubts about the issue. Finally, it was discovered that, because of the severity of the defect that affects this veredict – originated, principally, from the offense to the constitutional principles – it is possible that any interested subject of the process can claim it. Besides that, for the same reasons, it is admitted the use of several procedural means to combat this decision, like the rescissory action, the enforcement’s impugnment of the judgment, the querela nullitatis insanabilis or any other suitable procedural means and compatible with the specific situation.Keywords: Necessary unitary joinder of parties. Judgment of merit. Inexistence. Invalidity. Inefficacy.

scholarly journals Coisa julgada inconstitucional sob a hodierna ótica jurisprudencial / Unconstitutional res judicata at a contemporary vision jurisprudential

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre de Serpa Pinto Fairbanks ◽  
Antonio Augusto Abreu de Serpa Pinto ◽  
Patricia Serpa Pinto
Keyword(s):  
Procedural Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Positive Content ◽  
Judicial Bias

Resumo: Com viés essencialmente jurisprudencial, o presente estudo tem por fito primordial trazer aos leitores as atuais perspectivas sobre a coisa julgada inconstitucional. Não obstante, enfatiza-se o Direito processual constitucionalizado e suas perspectivas em relação ao instituto da coisa julgada. Portanto, para que o objetivo seja alcançado, faz-se mister demonstrar o conteúdo positivo, bem como o entendimento doutrinário, relacionando-os diretamente à constituição e às jurisprudências, que dão justa medida ao raciocínio em comento.Abstract: With essentially judicial bias, this study has the primary aim to bring readers fresh perspectives on the res judicata unconstitutional. However, we emphasize the constitutionalized procedural law and their prospects in relation to principiologics conflicts. So for that goal is achieved, it is mister demonstrate the positive content as well as the doctrinal understanding, relating them directly to the establishment and jurisprudence, which give just measure the reasoning in comment.

Verfahrensfragen bei der Anpassung von Verträgen nach § 313 BGB

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedikt Bielefeld
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Model Solution ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Different Content ◽  
The Way

When codifying the german equivalent to the frustration of purpose, it was a declared intent of the legislator to facilitate out-of-court negotiations between the parties. Instead of recognizing a substantive obligation to negotiate, the work makes use of various instruments of procedural law to promote this goal. Section 313 of the German Civil Code also poses problems with regard to substantive res judicata: Since the goal of the adjustment is not predetermined and several adjustment variants are usually possible, the question arises to what extent a final judgment that decides on one of these variants stands in the way of later adjustment claims of a different content. This paper examines this question and presents a model solution.

The Competing Jurisdictions of the WTO and the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Fora in the Context of Multifaceted Disputes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Unclos ◽  
Dispute Settlement Mechanisms

The work examines the interaction between the dispute settlement mechanisms established under the UNCLOS and the WTO Agreement, while exploring the challenges that multifaceted disputes straddling different treaty regimes pose to international courts and tribunals of limited jurisdiction such as the WTO DSB and UNCLOS courts and tribunals. It addresses these challenges through the lens of the WTO treaty and the UNCLOS, while providing answers to the following questions: to what extent the mentioned specialized adjudicatory bodies can refer to other rules of international law, especially treaty rules, given their limited jurisdiction; what the implications of the pronouncements of the UNCLOS courts and tribunals are with respect to the WTO DSB and vice versa; how should they approach multifaceted disputes involving both WTO law and law of the sea issues; what rules govern their interaction. The work examines and systematizes the latter rules, while particularly focusing on res judicata. Concerning res judicata, it tackles the questions what the status and meaning of res judicata is and to what types of preclusive pleas it can give rise in international law; whether it can operate as an inter-systemic rule. The work proposes solutions in case a multifaceted dispute allegedly involving different treaties and different branches of international law is submitted for resolution before different dispute settlement fora of limited jurisdiction and in doing so it contributes to the discussion on international procedural law and interaction of treaties and dispute settlement mechanisms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document