CONSTITUTIONAL AND PROCEDURE ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE 489, IN PARTICULAR ITS FIRST PARAGRAPH, OF THE NEW CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

Abstract

It is with great enthusiasm that we present this digital book, whose main objective is to carry out a detailed and critical analysis of article 489 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, with a special focus on its first paragraph. This work arises from the need to understand and discuss the nuances and implications of this legal provision in the context of decisions in civil proceedings.
The digital book is structured into three main parts. Decisions in the Civil Process: In this section, we explore the crucial role of judicial decisions in the civil process. We discuss the importance of justifying decisions as a fundamental principle of the Rule of Law, highlighting its impact on guaranteeing the rights of the parties involved.
The following part deals with the Duty to Give Reasons: Here, we get to the heart of the matter, addressing the duty imposed on the judge to justify his decisions in a clear, precise and coherent way. We investigated the legal bases of this duty, its evolution over time and its relevance to the effectiveness of the judicial system.
Next, we enter the Critical Analysis of Article 489 of the Civil Procedure Code: Finally, we dedicate a detailed analysis to article 489 of the CPC, especially its first paragraph. We examine its provisions in light of constitutional and procedural principles, identifying their potential gaps, ambiguities and interpretative challenges. Furthermore, we propose reflections and suggestions to improve the application of this device in legal practice.
Throughout this book, we aimed to offer a significant contribution to the understanding and improvement of the Brazilian civil procedural system. We hope that the analyzes and reflections presented here inspire constructive debates and promote greater awareness of the fundamental aspects of civil jurisdiction.
We wish everyone an excellent reading and that this work can add value to the academic and legal debate in our country.
The authors,