(Im)possibilidade de interposição de agravo do artigo 544 do CPC em decisão monocrática de repercussão geral em recurso extraordinário (artigo 543-B do CPC) segundo a jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal

Abstract

This work is proposed according to the analysis of specific doctrine in the field and also in the General Repercussion jurisprudence on the subject under consideration to establish a purpose brought Brazilian Legal System, by Constitutional Amendment. 45/04, which was to reduce the cases heard by the Brazilian Supreme Court in order to enable a higher qualification in judgments granted by such court. It should also be noted that such a goal is very important in the exhibition of such work considering that is one of the foundations used for (im) possibility of filing an interlocutory appeal of Article 544 of the Civil Procedure Code and the analysis of the Court a quo if there Rebound or not ventilated General on the matter by the applicant, can deny that this Court continue the extraordinary appeal to realize that this is the same material that has been raised previously denied Rebound General. It is questionable if in screen as the (im) possibility of filing an interlocutory appeal of Article 544 of the CPC which is responsible for unlocking and routing of Appeal to the Supreme Court because it has exclusive jurisdiction to institute such analysis. For part of the doctrine could be bringing such harm, since it could not be denied following the Extraordinary Appeal, the Court of ordinary instance, for lack of repercussion being that the General himself who is Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to analysis of such a feat, yet another part of the doctrine incabível understands precisely because it distorts the Office of General Repercussion who came to reduce the number of cases heard by the Praetorium Exalted and by allowing the filing of the grievance above would be emptied by the Institute of General Repercussion and yet because the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court starts only with maintenance of understanding what was otherwise defined by the Supreme Court, not by giving the Supreme Court jurisdiction when there was a simple judgment of admissibility, not even wounding Sumula 727 of the Federal Supreme Court. The thought sketched above is also supported by the case law through complaint dismissed by Justice Ellen Gracie, which is Rcl 7569/SP. Once upon confirmation of such thinking is right that seeks to add value and meaning to Rebound General in the legal system, based on the principle of the Oneness of all the Legal System, which seeks to encompass all the institutes in order coexisting harmoniously in addition to give higher quality to judgments of the Supreme Court which can judge the matter more rigorously technical and legal.