Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 5:41:54 GMT -5
The judgment of an action without the necessary production of evidence represents a restriction of defense and an offense against the constitutional principles of adversarial proceedings, broad defense and due legal process. The understanding is from the th Panel of the Superior Court of Justice. The ministers denied a Special Appeal in which Caixa Econômica Federal requested a change in the decision of the Federal Regional Court of the th Region, which annulled the first instance ruling in favor of the bank.
In the appeal to the STJ, the CEF claimed that the judge considered the evidence already in the case to be sufficient and that the TRF- could not annul the ex officio sentence. However, the rapporteur of the case at the STJ, minister Austria Phone Numbers List Luiz Felipe Salomão, stated that the judge directly examined the case, judging it in advance, ruling that the request was dismissed due to lack of evidence. For the minister, this procedure characterizes, in addition to curtailing the party's right to defense, a lack of justification for the sentence.
Regarding the possibility of the court annulling the sentence on its own initiative, Salomão stated that “the effectiveness of the process is not a principle available to the parties”, which is why “the evidentiary instruction, a matter of public order, must be observed”.
The case
A CEF client in Paraíba informed the bank about a withdrawal of R$ made incorrectly from her account. After unsuccessful attempts to receive the amount back, she went to court asking for compensation for moral and material damages.
In the action, the account holder requested the production of testimonial evidence. The judge judged the case in advance, which is only possible when the case involves only legal issues or when there is no evidence to produce other than documents already attached to the case. He considered the author's request unfounded, on the grounds of lack of proof of the right claimed by her.
The consumer appealed to the TRF- The second instance understood that “the rejection of an express request for the production of evidence restricts the party's right to prove their allegations” and, therefore, annulled the sentence. “As the plaintiff requested the production of testimonial evidence, having established its need to resolve the issue, the judge cannot judge the dispute in advance,” stated the TRF- Caixa appealed to the STJ, which did not change the decision. With information from the STJ Press Office.
In the appeal to the STJ, the CEF claimed that the judge considered the evidence already in the case to be sufficient and that the TRF- could not annul the ex officio sentence. However, the rapporteur of the case at the STJ, minister Austria Phone Numbers List Luiz Felipe Salomão, stated that the judge directly examined the case, judging it in advance, ruling that the request was dismissed due to lack of evidence. For the minister, this procedure characterizes, in addition to curtailing the party's right to defense, a lack of justification for the sentence.
Regarding the possibility of the court annulling the sentence on its own initiative, Salomão stated that “the effectiveness of the process is not a principle available to the parties”, which is why “the evidentiary instruction, a matter of public order, must be observed”.
The case
A CEF client in Paraíba informed the bank about a withdrawal of R$ made incorrectly from her account. After unsuccessful attempts to receive the amount back, she went to court asking for compensation for moral and material damages.
In the action, the account holder requested the production of testimonial evidence. The judge judged the case in advance, which is only possible when the case involves only legal issues or when there is no evidence to produce other than documents already attached to the case. He considered the author's request unfounded, on the grounds of lack of proof of the right claimed by her.
The consumer appealed to the TRF- The second instance understood that “the rejection of an express request for the production of evidence restricts the party's right to prove their allegations” and, therefore, annulled the sentence. “As the plaintiff requested the production of testimonial evidence, having established its need to resolve the issue, the judge cannot judge the dispute in advance,” stated the TRF- Caixa appealed to the STJ, which did not change the decision. With information from the STJ Press Office.