DENIAL OF MOTION FOR PROVISIONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURE PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF:
A INDIRECT WAY TO GRANT A PROTECTIVE MEASURE IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT?
Abstract
Abstract: The institute of jurisdiction is one of the foundations of the Civil Procedure, which is why the correct understanding of its meaning and extent is essential to the theoretical mastery of the subject. In order to clearly define the terms of the exercise of the jurisdictional activity, this article aims to assess whether the rejection of the motion for provisional protection measure presented by the plaintiff consists, indirectly, in the granting of jurisdictional protection in favor of the oposite party. Methodologically, the paper uses literature review to establish the necessary premises to solve the proposed problem. From the studies of the specialized doctrine, it is concluded that although the definitive rejection of the plaintiff's claim in a judgment implies, indirectly, the granting of judicial protection in favor of the defendant, the same cannot be said regarding the rejection of the request for provisional protection measure.
Keywords: Civil Procedure. Provisional protection measures. Principle of party disposition. Principle of congruence. Jurisdictional protection.
Downloads
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work is simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which allows sharing the work with recognition of its authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
The author declares to be responsible for the originality, uniqueness and currency of the article content, by means of complete references to all consulted sources.
Each author grants to the LexCult Journal permission to evaluate, normalize, edit and publish the submitted article, in an unprecedented way.
Plagiarism cases and self plagiarism will not be accepted under no circumstances. The plagiarist will be prohibited to publish in LexCult Journal for 5 years.
The copy, in full or to some extent, of an article published in LexCult Journal will be allowed as long as the source (author and Journal) is informed, being forbidden the commercial use and the production and distribution of derivative works. In case the exclusivity clause is broken, the submission will be filed and the author will be prohibited to publish in LexCult Journal for 5 years, without bringing any civil actions provided by national law.
The author is aware that:
a) Submissions may be rejected if the journal's Editorial Board, responsible for evaluation and article selection, does not consider it pertinent for publication, whatever may be the well-justified reasons;
b) Editors reserve the right to modify the submitted manuscript - without any content alteration - in view of its normalization and adaptation to the publication norms.
