Resumo da Obra

• Nesse artigo a autora vai comparar a função de uniformização da jurisprudência do STJ com o BGH da Alemanha, que exerce um papel de corte superior de julgamento de direito civil e penal.
• Ela faz um retrospecto histórico do processo civil alemão e suas reformas que irão culminar em dispositivos tendentes a criar julgamentos monocráticos e tornar o tribunal em uma instância de revisão de erros judiciais.
• Assim, ela compara o recurso especial ao revision alemão.
• A comparação fica interessante na medida que a revisão pode ter dois tipos, sendo que o Zulassungsrevision tem requisitos semelhantes aos do direito brasileiro: importância fundamental (grundsätzliche Bedeutung), interesse no desenvolvimento do direito (Fortbildung des Rechts), uniformização de jurisprudência (Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsprechung).
• Inclusive no direito alemão o julgador deve dizer se admite a revision, senão é cabível um tipo de recurso análogo ao agravo em resp brasileiro.
• É dito que, a partir dessas reformas, a revision passou a ser um instrumento de proteção do direito objetivo, e apenas de uma forma mediata é que protege o interesse das partes, que passa a ser considerada como um veículo para o interesse geral.
• Apesar de o direito alemão não adotar o modelo de precedentes (apenas as decisões do BVerfGG são vinculantes), há uma importância para a uniformização da jurisprudência e certeza do direito, o que leva os juízes a darem muita importância às decisões proferidas pelo BGH e a autora considera que isso leva a Corte a ter uma função prospectiva.
• A Autora compra a tese das cortes de precedentes e o seu papel de intérpretes do direito para uniformização de jurisprudência, e que isso seria a adoção do modelo de precedentes do common law.
• Assim, ela usa o tema do projeto da PEC 209/12, que foi aprovada como EC 125/2022 como um instrumento que irá aproximar os filtros de admissibilidade do REsp ao Revision alemão, não apenas como uma forma para garantir o desenvolvimento do direito e uniformidade da jurisprudência como para desafogar o STJ. Ela concorda com a tese de que o STJ não deve atuar como uma 3ª instância de revisão de casos concretos, mas como uma corte com um papel constitucional de uniformização da jurisprudência em direito federal.
• A autora parece se contradizer, já que ela enfatiza como o sistema alemão mantém a uniformidade da sua jurisprudência mesmo sem ter um sistema de precedentes a despeito da aceitação da tese precedentalista das cortes de vértice que produzem precedentes vinculantes. Ainda mais considerando que o no BGH eles admitem, ainda que de forma excepcional, a revaloração de provas para que a decisão seja bem fundamentada, reforçando a auctoritas em detrimento da potestas da decisão, enquanto no Brasil a súmula 7 impede a revaloração de provas e os fundamentos das decisões tendem a ser descolados de um caso concreto.
• A conclusão do artigo é de que a adoção do filtro da relevância pelo STJ poderia fortalecer a função unificadora do direito federal, à semelhança do papel que o BGH consegue exercer na Alemanha.

Conexões

Linkar outras notas relacionadas

Citações e Passagens Relevantes

“The German Civil Procedure Code (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO) was promulgated in 1877 (effective in 1879) and has undergone several subsequent legislative amendments” (Welsch, 2021, p. 4)

“Since then, the democratic values and the protection of fundamental human rights have reinvigorated, and a true constitutionalization of the civil procedure (Konstitutionalisierung) has been witnessed with the dogmatic construction of certain fundamental procedural rights, such as the right to the administration of justice (Justizgewährungsanspruch)” (Welsch, 2021, p. 4)

“Since the 1970s, the concern has been to simplify (Vereinfachung) and speed up (Beschleunigung) procedures, and to guarantee access to justice. The German civil procedure has received some instruments and procedures aimed at achieving speed and effectiveness such as provisional execution. In 2001, there was a reform in the appeals court, with emphasis on the monocratic trial, on the procedural simplification and on the change of the system of appeal into an instrument for error control (Instrument zur Fehlerkontrolle).” (Welsch, 2021, p. 4-5)

“The two main points of the reform concern the strengthening of the first degree of jurisdiction and the revision of the appeals system to seek greater speed and procedural economy. To this end, the German legislator invested in the means for litigants to be able to foresee the probable outcome throughout the process. The scope was to enable the parties to assess the real need to submit the case to the Ap-pellate Court based on the existence of errors.” (Welsch, 2021, p. 6)

“Moreover, the reform ex-pands the possibilities that one of the members of the court will judge the Berufung, instead of the collegium, by its decision” (Welsch, 2021, p. 7)

“Revision is the analogous appeal to the Brazilian special appeal and has the function of protecting the objective law and ensuring uniformity of jurisprudence. The revisable objective law, different from the Brazilian provision, covers not only the federal law (Bundesrecht) but also certain state law rules, the European and the foreign law rules, except for the administrative acts” (Welsch, 2021, p. 7)

“There are two kinds of Revision: 1) Zulassungsrevision (by admission) which must be granted if the challenged judgment decides a legal question of fundamental importance (grundsätzliche Bedeutung), if a decision of the BGH is warranted in the interest of the development of the law (Fortbildung des Rechts) or if a decision of the BGH is necessary to ensure the uniformity of jurisprudence (Sicherung einer einheitlichen Rechtsprechung); 2) Sprungrevision (per saltum) suitable for a firstdegree judgment and brought directly before the BGH if both parties agree to the „leap“ and if it exceeds the jurisdiction value of 600 euros, in addition to the requirements of the Revision (§ 566 ZPO)” (Welsch, 2021, p. 7)

“As for the regime of the Revision, the reform determined that the admission is no longer subject to any requirement related to the value, and the possibility of filing the appeal is subject to the permission of the second-degree judge of the Berufung. Such a permission must be granted whenever the legal issue has fundamental significance or if a decision of the BGH is necessary for the development of the law or the guarantee of a uniform jurisprudence (§ 543). An appeal by Revision must, thus, be admissible if the Oberlandesgericht’s judgment differs from a decision of the BGH or the joint session of the higher courts and it is sufficient that such a difference consists in a considerable objection to the application of the BGH’s opinion” (Welsch, 2021, p. 8)

“The Judging body of the Appeal must clarify in the holding of its own judgment whether or not it authorizes Revision (§ 543(1) ZPO). If there is no authorization, §544 of the ZPO provides for the filing of a Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde (a kind of appeal for admission to a Special and Extraordinary Appeal of the Brazilian civil process)” (Welsch, 2021, p. 8)

“Once the Revision appeal is granted, the contested decision is annulled and the right solution to the question of law that is the object of the appeal is defined (judgment of cassation – § 562 ZPO). Therefore, unlike the Brazilian system, as a rule, the case must be returned to the court a quo for a retrial following the understan-ding of the BGH (§ 563(1) ZPO). However, in cases where the cause is considered mature for decision, the judgment of cassation may be exceeded with the application of the right to the species (§ 563(3) ZPO)” (Welsch, 2021, p. 9)

“The concept of “fundamental importance” (grundsätzliche Bedeutung) or “fundamental significance” refers to the idea of the old “relevance of the federal question”. This is a requirement that the Federal Supreme Court had adopted to admit an extraordinary appeal in certain cases. The same was later enshrined in the requirement to demonstrate general repercussion for the admission of the extraordinary appeal, functioning as an appeal filter” (Welsch, 2021, p. 9)

“Thus, the only case of formally binding precedents relates to precedents of the German Federal Constitutional Court, which are strictly binding. According to § 31(1) BVerfGG, all decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court are binding on all constitutional bodies of the Federal Republic and states, as well as on all courts and authorities” (Welsch, 2021, p. 10)

“The Brazilian legal system adopted the system of binding judicial precedents, proper of common law countries” (Welsch, 2021, p. 11)

“Considering the redefinition of the techniques to be observed in the search for uniformity of jurisprudence and unity of law in the Brazilian system, it is necessary to reformulate the roles of the Superior Courts in terms of control, interpretation, and application of the law” (Welsch, 2021, p. 12)

“This insertion of the system of binding judicial precedents in the Brazilian legal system, historically Civil Law, clearly demonstrates the progressive approximation of the techniques of the Common Law system, despite the structural differences, the objectives pursued by the two systems are coincident since they seek to ensure the stability and predictability of the Law” (Welsch, 2021, p. 14)

“History and experience demonstrate the inefficiency of the pure civil law system in current Brazilian law in terms of the resolution of disputes in the light of the Constitutional State, at a time when not only the resolution of the case but also its character as justice is required.” (Welsch, 2021, p. 14) Essa afirmação não tem comprovação, não dá pra afirmar essa tal ineficiência do civil law no Brasil

“This search stands out for legal certainty, with strong inspiration in the model of judicial precedents of the “common law” system and determines the Superior Courts to reformulate their roles and functions in the control, interpretation, and application of the law” (Welsch, 2021, p. 14)

“In this perspective, as to the possibility of higher courts to select causes of greater relevance and transcendence, one may have a look at the German system. The higher courts cite the Bundesgerichtshof when judging the Revision appeal, which has as its admission criterion the necessary existence of fundamental importance (grundsätzliche Bedeutung) of the matter or the relevance for the development of law (Fortbildung des Rechts).” (Welsch, 2021, p. 14)

“The BGH succeeded the Reichsgericht, the highest court in the Empire (Reich) in civil and criminal matters from 1879 to 1945. Art. 95 of the Basic Law established civil and criminal matters from 1879 to 1945. Art. 95 of the Basic Law established the BGH, and §§ 123 and the following” (Welsch, 2021, p. 18)

“The judges composing the court must be over thirty-five years old (§ 125 GVG) and are chosen by the Richterwahlausschuss (Committee years old (§ 125 GVG) and are chosen by the Richterwahlausschuss (Committee for the Selection of Judges) jointly with the Minister of Justice, by Art. 95(2) of for the Selection of Judges) jointly with the Minister of Justice, by Art. 95(2) of the Basic Law and rules of the Richterwahlgesetz (Law Governing the Selection of the Basic Law and rules of the Richterwahlgesetz (Law Governing the Selection of Judges – Judges – RiWG). Currently,” (Welsch, 2021, p. 18)

“Currently, the BGH is composed of 152 judges distributed in 18 senates (with 17 presiding judges). Thirteen of the senates are civil (Zivilsenate) and five of them are presiding judges). Thirteen of the senates are civil (Zivilsenate) and five of them are criminal (Strafsenate). The Senate is composed of six to eight judges each (alongside criminal (Strafsenate). The Senate is composed of six to eight judges each (alongside the president).” (Welsch, 2021, p. 18)

“There are also two Grand Senates – one in civil matters and the other one in criminal matters – which together form the Grand United Senate.” (Welsch, 2021, p. 18)

“A joint/common senate ensures the uniformity of jurisprudence of the five highest federal courts (Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe, Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig, Federal Finance Court in Munich, Federal Labour Court in Erfurt and Federal Social Court in Kassel).” (Welsch, 2021, p. 18)

“Acting before the BGH requires specific authorization (currently there are 42 qualified lawyers),76 whose requirements are being over 35 years old, having a minimum of 5 years of uninterrupted forensic practice (§ 166 (3) BRAO – Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung) and having a law office in the city of Karlsruhe (headquarters of the BGH). The lawyer may join only one other lawyer equally qualified before the BGH and may only be perform the practice of law before the highest courts.” (Welsch, 2021, p. 20)

“Such problems do not arise in the German BGH. As mentioned above, in exceptional cases the German BGH may carry out the re-evaluation of evidence and the re-examination of the respective conclusions of the court of first instance as to the facts relevant to the decision when the cause is mature or when a procedural rule applicable to the determination of the fact has been violated (Verstoß gegen eine Verfahrensvorschrift). Furthermore, the admissibility criteria of Revision make it possible to deal with the matter whenever the BGH deems it necessary to develop and grant unity of law, as well as when the matter is of fundamental importance, these being the filters for admission of the appeal.” (Welsch, 2021, p. 24) o problema apontado é a súmula 7 que impede a admissão de resp para revisão de fatos

“Therefore, if the matter presents a fundamental relevance and may have general repercussions, the German BGH will analyze and judge the Revision appeal. Consequently, the judiciary will observe and follow the content of the decision signed by the court, and legal practice as a guideline will exercise a de facto binding function in the German legal system.” (Welsch, 2021, p. 24)

“Therefore, it remains clear that the inspiration from the German model of imposing an admissibility requirement of fundamental importance/signification for the analogous appeal of Revision is positive and can contribute to the system of the Brazilian Special Appeal since the German experience demonstrates the gain in effectiveness and functionality of the Superior Court (BGH) through the application of the relevance recursive filter.” (Welsch, 2021, p. 25)