Ação rescisória por questão jurídica não examinada

Abstract

The Code of Civil Procedure of 2015 was modified by Law nº 13.256/2016. The change to be analyzed in this dissertation is the one that inserted Paragraphs 5 and 6 to the article 966, V, of the CCP (Code of Civil Procedure). Through Paragraph 5, it is possible to interpret that the violated legal rule is a binding precedent. Paragraph 6, in its turn, defines that this violation will occur when such precedent is not analyzed, that is, when it constitutes an unexamined legal issue. Therefore, through the application of the hypothetico-deductive method, it is intended to identify, in the light of article 5, XXXV and XXXVI of the Constitution, if the termination action can be used as a technique for distinguishing or overcoming precedents; if the res judicata, presupposition of the termination action, can be directly related to the precedents from the functional point of view; if, in the current format, the termination action would not be exercising the same function as the appeals; and, lastly, understand what is the constitutionally adequate normative content for the current wording of the institute. Thus, it is concluded that the termination action is not a technique for overcoming precedents; the res judicata and the precedents are not on the same normative and theoretical plane; in the current wording, the termination action functions as a new appealing way of interpretation; and its normative content is the correction of the error of judgment, by exhausting all possibilities of challenge in the ordinary jurisdiction.