Interim relief: Historical evolution and controversial points in the 2015 code of civil procedure

Abstract

Introduction: This article proposes a brief historical analysis of the evolution of provisional protection in the Brazilian legal system, followed by a discussion of the application of the institute within the scope of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, specifically dealing with the problems involving the modalities of urgency and evidence. Objective: It is known that the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure brought a new look to the old precautionary guardianship, which in addition to being renamed, was adapted to the constitutional vision of the effectiveness of the process. However, the novelties presented, although virtuous, have brought to light some points of practical conflict, such as: fungibility, granting provisional relief ex officio, provisional relief on appeal, reversibility of the measure, partial anticipation and stabilization of the guardianship, which this article seeks to analyze. Justification: This research is relevant because it aims to bring to the center of the study the historical context of interim relief in order to understand its evolution and from there, interpret the problems that have arisen in the current procedural conjuncture. Methodology: In short, the research was carried out using a qualitative approach, the bibliographical review procedure and inductive-deductive logic, in order to carry out a theoretical survey of the problem presented and apply it to the content studied. Secondary sources were also used, especially publications in books, academic studies and scientific articles that cover the central question of the research. Conclusion and result: In the end, it can be concluded that provisional protection has been present in our legal system since the beginning of the codifications, although usually identified by other names. Hence its importance in the legal world. On the other hand, the study identified that interim relief is a complex institute that should always be studied for the sake of efficient judicial protection.

DOI:https://doi.org/10.56238/sevenIIImulti2023-172