Mostrar registro simples

dc.creatorLelis, Bruno Kiefer
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-02T14:10:33Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-22T17:31:57Z
dc.date.available2023-03-22T17:31:57Z
dc.date.issued2020-02-18
dc.identifier.citationLELIS, Bruno Kiefer. Negócios processuais e administração pública dialógica: a (in)suficiência do art. 190 do CPC/2015 às convenções pela Fazenda Pública . 2020. 135 f. Dissertação (Mestrado) - Universidade Católica de Pernambuco. Programa de Pós-graduação em Direito. Mestrado em Direito, 2020.por
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12032/76795
dc.description.abstractDoes the general clause of procedural negotiation constitute sufficient legal permissiveness to regulate the negotiability of the Public Administration procedural prerogatives in court, especially in the case of its current consensual administrative profile? In order to answer this question, the evolution of the Public Administration profile is discussed, through a critical analysis of the called “column of the administrative legal regime” - supremacy and unavailability of the public interest - as well as the new model is evaluated procedural arising from the promulgation of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and its repercussions on the performance of the Public Administration in court. In the same measure, the typology of procedural juridical businesses is distinguished in the panorama of the theory of legal fact, advancing to a general analysis of the institute with CPC/2015 and closing with its specific approach when used by the Public Administration for the purpose of negotiating its prerogatives procedural. As for the methodology, an analytical and normative dogmatic approach we made, through a literature review and the norms that make up both the area of Civil Procedural Law, as well as General Law Theory and, obviously, Administrative Law. At the end, it is concluded that the general clause of procedural negotiation is sufficient to regulate the negotiability of the procedural prerogatives of the Public Administration in court, where the eventual regulation by the entities would serve only as a recommended measure, but not essential for the instrument to be signed.eng
dc.formatapplication/pdf*
dc.languageporpor
dc.publisherUniversidade Católica de Pernambucopor
dc.rightsAcesso Abertopor
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectDissertaçõespor
dc.subjectBrasil - Código de Processo Civil (2015)por
dc.subjectProcesso civil - Brasilpor
dc.subjectDireito administrativo - Brasilpor
dc.subjectDissertationseng
dc.subjectBrazil - Code of Civil Procedure (2015)eng
dc.subjectCivil proceedings - Brazileng
dc.subjectAdministrative Law - Brazileng
dc.titleNegócios processuais e administração pública dialógica: a (in)suficiência do art. 190 do CPC/2015 às convenções pela Fazenda Pública.por
dc.typeDissertaçãopor


Arquivos deste item

ArquivosTamanhoFormatoVisualização
Ok_bruno_kiefer_lelis.pdf890.5Kbapplication/pdfVisualizar/Abrir

Este item aparece na(s) seguinte(s) coleção(s)

Mostrar registro simples

Acesso Aberto
Exceto quando indicado o contrário, a licença deste item é descrito como Acesso Aberto

© AUSJAL 2022

Asociación de Universidades Confiadas a la Compañía de Jesús en América Latina, AUSJAL
Av. Santa Teresa de Jesús Edif. Cerpe, Piso 2, Oficina AUSJAL Urb.
La Castellana, Chacao (1060) Caracas - Venezuela
Tel/Fax (+58-212)-266-13-41 /(+58-212)-266-85-62

Nuestras redes sociales

facebook Facebook

twitter Twitter

youtube Youtube

Asociaciones Jesuitas en el mundo
Ausjal en el mundo AJCU AUSJAL JESAM JCEP JCS JCAP