A tutela sumária de direitos evidentes sob a ótica dos princípios constitucionais do processo

Abstract

The present study analyzes the procedural technique of evidence protection and its role in the search for the effectiveness of the constitutional principles of the process, bringing up the issue of the time's effect in the jurisdictional activity, and the increasing phenomenon of the procedural cognition summarization, where the wide-knowledge process starts to be viewed as a residual pathway for conflict resolution. Applying the indirect documentation technique, through bibliographical research, the evolution of provisional injunctions is initially presented in our legal system, without any necessity of joint proof for the urgency and evidence assumptions for the regular concession of a prior injunction provision. An exposition of the cognitive activity developed in the provisional guardians is made in the horizontal and vertical plans, observing the close relations between the "evidence" and the evidence elements presented in the process, as well as emphasizing the difference in the level of cognition found in the emergency and evidence protections. It examines the hypotheses of injunction of evidence as previewed in art. 311 of the Code of Civil Process, pointing out criticism about the composing of some of its paragraphs, as well as presenting suggestions for a better use of the norm under study. It observes the use of evidence protection in the phase of appeal, in cases involving the Public Treasury and the possibility of carrying out legal process business on the evidence of a certain right. It discusses about the evolution of paradigms of constitutional law and systemic theory within constitutionalism, placing the Constitution as an element that influences and is influenced by social relations. An approach is made about the summarization of procedural cognition as of the constitutional principles of the legal process, reasonable length of process, and the effective access to justice, with special emphasis on the "marginal damage" issue, which comes about due to the delay in the procedural process itself, regardless of the judicial protection, which affects all subjects in the process. It points to the difficulty of reconciling the desire for celerity in the procedure with the fundamental guarantees of the process, considering that constitutional values will collide quite frequently, causing the judge to inevitably consider prudence. Lastly, a more specific analysis of the constitutionality of the protection of evidence as set forth in the clauses and single paragraph of article 311 of Law 13,105/2015 is more precisely analyzed, highlighting the great doctrinal discussion regarding the concession of injunction of evidence without the counterclaim of the opposing part, where the possibility of postponing the right to the contradictory is questioned, even in cases in which no urgency is needed.