Uma aproximação entre a capacidade institucional dos Tribunais de Contas e o regime de precedentes e súmulas do Código de Processo Civil

AutorCaroline Müller Bitencourt, Carlos Ignacio Aymerich Cano, Jonas Faveiro Trindade
CargoUniversidade de Santa Cruz do Sul, Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil/Universidad da Coruña, Coruña, Spain/Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul, Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil
Páginas1-32
1
DOI https://doi.org/10.5007/2177-7055.2021.e82984
Direito autoral e licença de uso: Este artigo está sob uma Licença Creative Commons.
Com essa licença, você pode compartilhar, adaptar, para qualquer fim, desde que atribua
a autoria da obra e forneça um link para a licença, e indicar se foram feitas alterações.
An approach between the institutional
capacity of the Courts of Audit and the
regimen of precedents and summulas
from the Civil Procedure Code
Uma aproximação entre a capacidade institucional
dos Tribunais de Contas e o regime de precedentes
e súmulas do Código de Processo Civil
Caroline Müller Bitencour t
Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul, Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil
Carlos Ignacio Aymerich Cano
Universidad da Coruña, Cor uña, Spain
Jonas Faveiro Trindade
Universidade de Santa Cruz do Sul, Santa Cruz do Sul, Brazil
Abstract: The institut ional capacity of the cour ts of audit as maker s and applicants
of precedents and s ummulas (resta tement of case law) is investig ated to answer the
following: is it possible a mutually benecial approach to the decision standards
regimen from the Civil P rocedure Code-CPC, as well as a productive dialogue
with the Law of Int roduction to the Braz ilian Lega l Statutes (Lei de I ntrodução às
normas do Direito Brasileiro-LINDB)?. The objective of the work is to analyze,
from the abstract and concrete instit utional capacities of the aud it courts, the ap-
titude for the for mation and application of decision-making standards. To do so,
Ronald Dwork in’s interpret ive theory was chosen, es pecially becau se it is believed
that precedent s are intertwi ned in a discursive plot, w hen every single inter preter
commits to analyzing past decisions, in a reexive way, to decide in the present
and, at the same time, ant icipating the directions for the fut ure of the decision,
which is made in the here and now. The hypothesis is that the audit court s have
the potentia l ability to form a nd apply precedents and summu las, arisin g from the
exercise of their constitutional powers, but that it is also necessar y to develop a
concrete capacit y to form and apply controll ing decision pattern s. In this way, it
2 SEQÜÊNCI A (FLORIANÓPOL IS), VOL. 42, N. 88, 2021
AN APPROAC H BETWEEN T HE INSTIT UTIONAL C APACIT Y OF THE COURT S OF AUDIT AND TH E REGIMEN
allows for a bet ter understanding of the relationship between t he decisions of the
audit court s and the judicial ones. It is a theoretical work, of legal analysis of the
subject, usin g the deductive method, star ting from a general a nalysis to reach the
institutional capacity of audit cou rts for the for mation and application of deci-
sion-making stand ards.
Keywor ds: Institutional capacities – Civil Procedure Code – Decision st andard s
– Courts of Aud it.
Resumo: Investiga-se a capacidade i nstitucional das cortes de contas, como for-
madoras e apl icadoras de precedentes e súmulas, pa ra responder: é possível uma
aproximaç ão profícua com o regi me de padrões decisór ios do Código de Processo
Civil-CPC, assi m como um diá logo produtivo com a Lei de Introdução à s Nor-
mas de Direito Brasileiro-LIN DB? O objetivo do traba lho é analisar, a pa rtir das
capacidades instit ucionais abstrata e concreta dos tr ibunais de contas, a apt idão
para formação e aplicação de padrões decisórios. Para tanto, elegeu-se a teoria
interpret ativista de Ronald Dwork in, espec ialmente porque acredit a-se que os
precedentes se entrelaçam em u ma trama discursiva, na qual cada i ntérprete se
coloca no compromisso de analisar as decisões pa ssadas, de forma reexiva, par a
decidir no pre sente e, ao mesmo tempo, antecipando t ambém os sent idos para o
futuro d a decisão, que se faz no aqui e agora. A hipótese é de que os tribu nais
de contas têm aptidão potencia l para formar e aplica r precedentes e sú mulas,
decorrente do exercício de suas competências constituciona is. Obser vou-se, que
o desenvolvimento da capacidade institucional concreta, para formar e apl icar
padrões decisórios controladores, permite uma melhor compreen são da relação
entre as deci sões dos tribuna is de contas e as judicia is. Trata-se de traba lho teórico,
de anál ise jurídica do tema, va lendo-se do método dedutivo, par tindo-se de uma
anál ise geral para se chega r à capacidade instit ucional dos tribun ais de contas para
formação e apl icação de padrões decisór ios.
Palavras-chave: Capacidades instit ucionais – Código d e Processo Civil – Sta ndards
decisórios – Cortes de Contas.
1 INTRODUCTION
When specialized external control of public accounts is thou-
ght of, it must be immediately considered the role reserved to the
Constituent to the courts of audit. The investigated theme is the
aptitude of these courts as makers and applicants of precedents and
summulas, a topic that has earned a wide emphasis in civil and
CAROL INE MÜLLER BIT ENCOURT C ARLOS IGNAC IO AYMERICH C ANO JONAS FAVEIRO TRINDADE
SEQÜÊNCI A (FLORIA NÓPOLIS) , VOL. 42, N . 88, 2021 3
constitutional purview, though with little mention to those review
bodies. It is important to note that the research is based on Ronald
Dworkin’s interpretive theory, allowing a sophisticated approach in
the construction and interpretation of judicial rulings. The goal is
to examine the courts of audit from their institutional capacity, both
abstract and concrete, to answer the following: is it possible a mutua lly
benecial approach to the decision standards regimen from the Civil
Procedure Code-CPC, as well as a productive dialogue with the Law
of Introduction to the Brazilian Legal Statutes-LINDB?
On matters of development, it is imperat ive to note that the exper-
tise of these judicia l review bodies might be investigat ed in the abstract,
in order to build a sta rting supposition within reach. These bodies were
designed to work as exper t systems, to be known as “system s of technical
accomplishment or professional expertise1” (G, 1991, p. 38). To
reect upon the institutional capacity, as well as other topics, means to
observe the “cognitive and decision-making aptitudes of each of the
review bodies” (C, 2021, p. 312). Such act embraces the analysis
of the institution, t aking into account that the inst itutional architecture
is thought from the perspective of “functional specialization” and the
distribution “of power and competencies among institutions to reach
their specic goa ls” (C, 2021, p. 317). Known that the exercise of
the competencies of a body does not occur in an institutional vacuum,
Dworkin’s proposal of chain novel comes to take part in this scenario.
This is due to decision standards being made and applied by courts of
audit and the Judicial Power, in a manner that there will be moments
in which the institutional history is shared among these bodies. The
controlling precedent s – this is the adopted naming system when made
by the courts of audit – and judicial ones are entw ined in the discursive
weave of Law. Therefore, these will be the points to be developed in
the rst section of this writing.
1 Souza notes t hat two exper t systems, faci ng the same issue, m ay oer dierent a nswers,
so establ ishing the conic t (SOUZA, 2018, p. 78-81).

Para continuar a ler

PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT