Objeção de pré-executividade e a nova disciplina da LEI N° 11.232/2005.

Abstract

This essay has title with: "objection of pre-executivement and the new law discipline 11.332/2005", using to the research the deductive method and bibliographic investigation putting into effect a collect of important knowings to the essay itself. It has the aim, not endeavoring to finish the issue, show in a general form one kind of debtor's defense into the civil execution process that is the objection of pre-executivement expressing, under unspecified situations, its legal nature, opportunity, form, procedure and its use not as a defense to substitute the hindrance into the execution, but a legal document of defense the debtor has the opportunity to use when he is in front of imperfections in the institution of executive action, like the example of nullity and public issues, that can be handle without judgment safe, because the inequality situation that he appears to the executor. This way, the state reserves itself the monopoly of jurisdictional guardianship, that works in the process, this one has in its subdivision the executive custody where the state, working with materials acts, makes the property responsibility. So, tring to turn the executive process more effective the legislative power and the executive published and promulgated the law 11.232/2005 that put two chapters into the title VIII, book I of CPC, giving support for present reform in execution process of judicial title saving the same subjects in CPC for extra-judicials title execution and for some kinds of especial execution, like that one against the national patrimony keeper. This way, it is important to say about the debtor's defense at the law 11.232/05 sight putting on spot the new disposition for judicial title execution that change the execution action for the level of sentence agreement turning process "double phase" getting over with hindrance execution but the incident of receptation to the sentence agreement that, showed in the essay body, make similarity with the objection procedure, because this one does not get over the execution and appears like a procedural incident, showing that even with the reform the objection of pre-executivement still possible and in evidence, because doesn't need judgment safe oppositing of sentence agreement receptation that still needs previous judgment safe by attachment to its use