ADI 5.941/DF Frente ao Poder Geral de Efetivação

Abstract

Within the context of the Civil Procedure Code, the "General Power of Coercion" and its atypical coercive measures have been the subject of intense debate, particularly following their constitutional validation by the Federal Supreme Court. Although anchored in Art. 139, IV, of the CPC/15, these measures provoke disparities within procedural doctrine, particularly concerning potential infringements on the defendant's fundamental rights. This study aims to evaluate the legitimacy of the atypical coercive measures, grounded in Art. 139, IV, of the CPC/15, in light of their recent constitutional acknowledgment by the Federal Supreme Court and to delve into the doctrinal divisions surrounding this topic. The investigation was grounded in a critical analysis of the legislation, particularly the CPC/15, as well as the ADIN 5.941/DF. It also considered the constitutional interpretation of the atypical coercive measures, the judgment by the Federal Supreme Court, and the jurisprudence set by the Superior Court of Justice. Furthermore, procedural doctrine was consulted to capture varying views on the legality and effectiveness of these measures. While the atypical coercive measures are backed by the CPC/15 and have been deemed constitutional by the Federal Supreme Court, they remain controversial in procedural doctrine. Many argue that such measures might infringe upon the defendant's fundamental rights, especially when considering established constitutional guarantees. The Federal Supreme Court's ruling on ADIN 5.941/DF ratified the use of these measures, provided they adhere to the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and efficiency. However, caution should prevail, ensuring that the "General Power of Coercion" doesn't amount to undue constraint on the debtor's freedom.