Interlocutory decision declining competence for appeal due to interlocutory appeal: interpretative analysis of art. 1.015 of the Code of Civil Procedure
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i4.13920Keywords:
Taxativeness of Art. 1,015; Final interlocutory decision on the merits; Provisional interlocutory decision on the merits; Interlocutory procedural decisions; Interlocutory appeal; Mitigation.Abstract
This article deals with the appeal of interlocutory decisions expressed in the Code of Civil Procedure, which now provides for hypotheses of definitive interlocutory decisions on merits, provisional interlocutory decisions on merits and interlocutory decisions. The problematization is found in the initial interpretation of taxativity of Art. 1.015 of the CPC, which provides for the appeal by an Interlocutory Appeal of the interlocutory decisions expressed and those that would not be expressed in the list of the referred article should be raised in a preliminary appeal, being appropriate, for purposes of avoiding the preclusion, the protest, in Art. 278, CPC/2015 or the writ of mandamus. However, recently the Superior Court of Justice understood that the interlocutory appeal against an interlocutory decision that judges a matter of incompetence is appropriate, given the then mitigated interpretation of Art. 1.015 of CPC/2015. For the argumentative construct, deductive methodology is used in the analysis of doctrine, jurisprudence and legislation relevant to the matter.
References
Agravo de instrumento pode questionar competência. (2017). Consultor Jurídico. https://www.conjur.com.br/2017-nov-24/agravo-instrumento-questionar-competencia-juizo.
Cardoso. O. V. Agravo de instrumento: rol taxativo ou exemplificativo? https://jus.com.br.
Gajardoni, F. F. O Novo CPC não é o que queremos que ele seja. https://www.jota.info.
Galuppo, M.C. (2008). Da ideia à defesa: monografias e teses jurídicas. (2a ed.). Mandamentos.
Imhof. C. Agravo de instrumento – Mudanças descritas no Novo CPC (Artigo 1.015). Saiba como o Novo CPC disciplinou o cabimento do recurso de agravo de instrumento e como os tribunais têm interpretado o rol taxativo do artigo 1.015. Recuperado de: https://blog.sajadv.com.br/novo-cpc-agravo-de-instrumento.
Mandado de Segurança nº 0000549-65.2017.4.04.0000/PR. (2017). Relator: Amaury Chaves de Athayde. Tribunal Regional Federal da 4ª Região. https://www2.trf4.jus.br.
Marconi, M.de A., Lakatos, E.M. (2003). Fundamentos de Metodologia Científica. (5a ed.).
Medina, J. M. G., Araújo, F. C. (2009). Mandado de Segurança Individual e Coletivo: comentários à Lei 12.016. Revista dos Tribunais.
Medina, J. M. G. (2014). Os Novos Conceitos de sentença e decisão interlocutória no novo CPC. https://www.conjur.com.br/2014-set-08/processo-novos-conceitos-sentenca-decisao-interlocutoria-cpc.
Medina, J. M. G. (2016) Direito Processual Civil Moderno. (2a ed.), Revista dos Tribunais.
Medina, J. M.G. (2016). Novo Código de Processo Civil Comentado. (4a ed.), Revista dos Tribunais.
Nery Junior, N., Nery, R. M. A. (2008). Código de Processo Civil Comentado. (10a ed.), Revista dos Tribunais.
Nery Junior, N., Nery, R. M. A. (2015). Comentários ao Código de Processo Civil. 2. Tiragem. Revista dos Tribunais.
Neves, D. A. A. (2016). Manual de Direito Processual Civil. (8a ed.), JusPodivm.
Recurso em Mandado de Segurança nº 49.020-SP. (2015). Relator: Raul Araújo. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. http://www.stj.jus.br/.
Recurso Especial nº 1.704.520/ MT. (2018) Relatora: Nancy Andrighi. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. http://www.stj.jus.br/.
Recurso Especial nº 1.679.909/RS. (2017). Relator: Luis Felipe Salomão. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. http://www.stj.jus.br/.
Mello, R L. T., Ramos. F. S., Bonagura, A. P., Montans, R. (2016). O agravo de instrumento e o rol do art. 1.015 do novo CPC: taxatividade? http://www.migalhas.com.br
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Gilmara Gonçalves Bolonheiz; Miriam Fecchio Chueiri; Kelly Cardoso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.