A repercussão geral na CF/88 e no CPC/15 e a crise do poder judiciário

Abstract

In 2004, through constitutional amendment no. 45/2004, a new admissibility requirement of extraordinary appeal was instituted by the Supreme Court called the general repercussion. The novel institute aimed to relieve the Supreme Court of the very high number of resources distributed every year, allowing the court to stay on the issues of constitutional relevance to give greater rationality to the works of constitutional jurisdiction and strengthen the Supreme Court. Although it has managed to significantly reduce the supreme court's acquis, it has not yet been enough to solve the crisis it has been going through practically since it was created in 1890. This paper seeks to identify the problems that lead to the high rate of resources that are distributed and present possible solutions to the legitimacy crisis. In an even more difficult situation lives the Superior Court of Justice given the immense amount of special resources that are distributed to this court. annually, preventing it from exercising its role as a standardising of federal infraconstitutional legislation. In 2012 the Supreme Court approved the draft Proposal for a Constitutional Amendment number 209/2012. The proposal aims to adopt the requirement to demonstrate the relevance of the federal issue to the special appeal in order to filter the most important or deeper processes with the aim of reducing the number of processes distributed, allowing the court to devote itself to the issues relevant to society. This work aims to analyze the general repercussion that is present in the Supreme Court and in the future may be present in the Supreme Court and whether it can contribute to solve the crisis of the Judiciary. The methodology used was the logical-deductive method, through bibliographic, documentary, legislative research and statistical data analysis. It is concluded that the filter of general repercussion is effective, however needs improvements to filter the most important cases and allow the two courts, both the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, to exercise the constitutional function for which they were created.