Sustentação oral em agravos de instrumento que desafiam decisões parciais: Uma necessária uniformização

Abstract

The present academic work intends to clarify, by carrying out a dogmatic and empiricalqualitative research, the apparent legislative incongruity about the impossibility of the parties to carry out oral arguments in the judgment of interlocutory appeals that challenge partial interlocutory decisions (with or without merit), as well as to offer feasible solutions to the mitigation of the procedural disparity discussed. The aim is to present elucidations to the mentioned problem through the accomplishment of systemic and adequate legal hermeneutics of procedural principles and norms, analysis regarding the possibility of expanding the permissive hypotheses of oral support by the Internal Regulations of the Lower Courts, as well as through analysis of the viability of performance of a procedural legal transaction between the parties.