Possessórias e petitórias coletivas de posse velha se transmutam em "ações estruturais" com "diálogo institucional": mais um passo na publicização do direito civil contemporâneo / Collective possessories and petitories of old possession transmuted into 'structural actions' with 'institutional dialogue': another step in publicizing contemporary civil law

ResumoAs ações possessórias e as ações petitórias coletivas de posse velha passam a partir do CPC 2015 a ter função diversa, pois se transmutam em ‘ações estruturais’ ou ações com ‘diálogo institucional’, direcionando-se ao que se pode denominar de publicização do direito civil introdução. O presente texto analisa a propriedade privada, posse e seus conflitos coletivos na atualidade brasileira diante da função social, dada pela deformalização objetiva e subjetiva das ações sobre posse no CPC 2015, com chamamento de entes públicos, com equiparação procedimental entre ações possessórias (interdito proibitório, manutenção de posse, reintegração de posse) e petitórias (reivindicatória e imissão de posse) e com a ‘publicização’ do direito civil pela incorporação de instituições e de entes estatais nos conflitos possessórios e petitórios. O diálogo institucional dá-se pela incorporação de entes administrativos estatais nos conflitos privados pela posse em possessórias e petitórias. Para isso, faz-se a diferenciação entre litígios, ações e processos estruturais e aqueles de litígios de interesse público ou que envolvem políticas públicas com conteúdo de posse em demandas possessórias e petitórias e a definição das complexidades e influências recíprocas entre o direito civil e o processo civil com a expansão procedimental do art. 565 a outros procedimentos especiais e comum (fundíveis).Palavras-chaves: Possessórias coletivas. Diálogo institucional. Direito Civil contemporâneo AbstractThis article confronts the changes brought in art. 565, § 4º, of CPC / 2015, which alter, from a new political-ideological conception, the view that has long had of possessory and petitionary lawsuits. According to the new text, in collective litigation for ownership of property (when the expropriation occurred more than a year ago), public institutions that are not part of the process are called upon to express their interests in the process and in the possibility of resolving the conflict. This subjective expansion can be interpreted as: Institutional Dialogue, Structural Processes or Public Interest Litigation, since they affect collective or social interests and those initiatives that are the subject of public policies. The article opposes classic concepts of Private Law in general and Civil Law, now under new influences from Public Law or even from Civil Procedure Law of “public interest”, thus meaning another step towards the publicization of Contemporary Civil Law. The methodology used was the comparison between doctrinal concepts of Civil Law and those of Constitutional Law, capable, according to part of the doctrine, to originate a Contemporary Civil Law.Keywords: Collective possessory lawsuits. Institutional dialogue. Contemporary civil law

Tiered Certification

This Article proposes a thought-experiment with regard to the administration of class actions. It is almost axiomatic that class actions are determined through a single “certification.” However, class actions can be certified through a tiered certification, e.g., a preliminary certification on a more lenient standard, followed by a full certification. Flattening the certification process allows a richer set of solutions to familiar dilemmas. Currently, a noncertified class does not bar subsequent certification attempts. Focusing on this problem, this Article demonstrates that tiered certification is a superior solution — members of a class that passed the first certification but not the second receive at least minimal procedural protection and thus could be precluded from serial certification attempts. More generally, tiered certification can better handle several species of collective litigation, which can be referred to as semi-class actions. Collective proceedings, whose certification costs are greater than their social benefit, do not justify a comprehensive class treatment. But to the extent that these cases entail some modest social value, they deserve to pass a less onerous, preliminary certification. The Article discusses cases that fit this pattern, for instance prospective, class-wide relief for technical regulatory violations.

The Potential of Antitrust Collective Litigation in 2017

The European Commission expected to assess the implementation of the 2013 Recommendation on collective redress by 26 July 2017, yet the Commission missed the deadline. Despite this failure, the Recommendation is still on the eu agenda: a public consultation has been started with the intention to assess how the eu member states responded to the 2013 proposal. On the one hand, it should be welcomed that the Commission remains ambitious regarding an eu-wide collective redress mechanism. On the other hand, it should be highlighted that the Commission is concentrating too much on the American system, which significantly differs in terms of rationale, design, and stated goals. Indeed, utilising one or another American element does not inevitably lead to the perceived issue of “blackmail settlement”. This is further qualified by positive experiences in pro-active eu member states, which have experimented with us-oriented tools in order to facilitate collective actions in their jurisdictions. This article explores how insights from the eu countries and the us should influence the debate on eu-style collective antitrust redress, if and when the time arises to take another step in the field.