This article aims to analyze the thesis that the
application of the doctrine of precedent, originated in England, could reduce
judicial litigation in Brazil, mainly in tax law procedures, such as tax
enforcement. Brazil Law applies Civil Law, which means that the law is based on
the principle of legality. However, the Brazilian Judiciary System is costly and has lower effectiveness. To deal with these problems, the National
Congress has changed the law, providing mechanisms from the Common Law, mainly
by introducing the binding precedents system. Respect for precedent is a
requirement of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code of 2015. However, the theory
of precedent was developed in a society culturally very different from the
Brazilian, which leads to the need for comparisons such as the exposed here
that will justify the differences facing the source procedure that will
undoubtedly occur. However, there are doubts if the transformation of the legal
system will reduce the impressive figures of judicial cases. Nevertheless, the
conclusion is definite. The precedent theory
involves techniques that can potentially reduce tax lawsuits, representing a
significant number of all legal disputes in Brazil. This conclusion was reached
through data analysis, some doctrinal sources, and, mainly, by the author’s
reflections. This mix of scientific method verifies the hypothesis: describes
and analyses the system and presents a definite conclusion.
References
[1]
Andrews, N. (2012). O modern processo civil: Formas judiciais e alternativas de resolução de conflitos na Inglaterra (2nd ed. Rev.). at. e ampl. Orientação e revisão da tradução por Teresa Arruda Alvim Wambier. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.
[2]
Brazil. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (3rd ed., p. 15). Biblioteca Digital da Camara dos Deputados. Brasília. http://english.tse.jus.br/arquivos/federal-constitution
[3]
Brazil. Justiça em Números 2016 (ano-base 2015). https://www.cnj.jus.br/
[4]
Brazil. Justiça em Números 2017 (ano-base 2016). https://www.cnj.jus.br/
[5]
Brazil. Justiça em Números 2018 (ano-base 2017). https://www.cnj.jus.br/
[6]
Brazil. Notícias do STF (December 12th, 2014). http://www.stf.jus.br
[7]
Brazil. Relatório Estatístico de 2018. http://www.stj.jus.br
[8]
Brazil. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. AgRg no REsp 382.736-SC. Publ. 03/03/2011. http://www.stj.jus.br
Bueno, C. S. (2015). Manual de direito processual civil. São Paulo: Saraiva.
[11]
Canotilho, J. J. G. (1991). Direito Constitucional. Coimbra: Almedina.
[12]
Cross, R. (2006). Statutory Interpretation (3rd ed.). Oxford: LexisNexis.
[13]
Cross, R., & Harris, J. W. (2004). Precedent in English Law. Oxford: Clarendon.
[14]
Da Ros, L. (2015). O custo da Justiça no Brasil: Uma análise comparativa exploratória. Newsletter. Observatório de elites políticas e sociais do Brasil. NUSP/UFPR, v. 2, n. 9.
[15]
Delgado, J. (2011). A imprevisibilidade das decisões judiciais.
[16]
Duxbury, N. (2008). The Nature and Authority of Precedents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17]
Kravchychyn, J. (2010). Brasil, sozinho, tem mais faculdades de direito que todos os países. http://www.oab.org.br
[18]
Lee, J. (2011). From House of Lords to Supreme Court: Judges, Jurists and the Process of Judging. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart.
[19]
Manchester, C., & Salter, D. (2011). Manchester and Salter on Exploring the Law: The Dynamics of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation (4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.
[20]
Marinoni, L. G. (2014). A ética dos Precedentes: justificativa do novo CPC. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.
[21]
Meissner, W. B. (2015). How to Explain Brazilian Civil Procedure in English. Curitiba: Juruá.
[22]
Raz, J. (2009). Between Authority and Interpretation: On the Theory of Law and Practical Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562688.001.0001
[23]
Tucci, J. R. C. (2015). O regime do precedente judicial no Novo CPC. Revista do Advogado, 35, 150.
[24]
United Kingdom (2015). The Supreme Court Annual Report and Accounts 2014-2015 (p. 26). https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/annual-report-2014-15.pdf
[25]
United States of America (2015). The Leadership Conference. https://civilrights.org/judiciary/federal-court-system/u-s-supreme-court
[26]
Zander, M. (2015). The Law-Making Process (7th ed.). Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart.
