A força vinculante dos precedentes no cpc/2015: contributo para a racionalidade nas decisões judiciais

Abstract

All legal systems, are of common law or civil law, dealing with precedent. Brazil, despite the arguably be a country of civil law tradition, also attaches importance to the judicial precedents. In legislative terms, we are on the eve of the new Civil Procedure Code, that positive a precedent system. The law must be consistent, because it is not formed only by the legal texts but also by judicial decisions. Different decisions in similar factual and legal situations reveal an inconsistent, unfair and unreasonable law. The study will demonstrate that mandatory compliance with the precedent, and the binding effect of the conference they constitute tools to ensure equality and predictability in and to the legal system. Faced with a decision, especially when emanating from the Supreme Courts (Supreme Court and High Court of Justice), the society believes that others cases may/must be decided in the same direction. Also the study will show, which is wrong the idea that only the law can give binding effect to judicial decisions emanating from that court. The Supreme Court has the task of telling the meaning and scope of the Constitution of the Brazilian Federal Republic of 1988, including binding effect, while the Supreme Court has the function of guiding how it should be interpreted the federal infra-constitutional legislation and task of unifying the country jurisprudence. This shows that the justice system is designed to be uniform, refuting contradictions between the organs that compose it. The study will present the techniques for proper training, identification, distinction and overcoming of the precedents. It will be suggested that, for proper elaboration of precedents, the Supreme Court and High Court of Justice must modify the way that they decide. It is recognized that, from the same factual and legal context, it is possible to extract more than a specific interpretation; however, it will be shown that it is not rational to keep the divergent position when the responsible courts in conferring the proper interpretation of federal constitutional and infra-constitutional norms have positioned themselves, eliminating the scenario that allowed the divergent interpretations. It will be shown that, in the formation of the precedent, to ensure integrity and consistency, should be guided by the north of the possibility of universal decision. The justification of universality in decision adds value to the theory of the precedents, precisely because that it encompasses, besides the principle of equality or legal certainty, the intention of rationality for judicial decisions.