A súmula vinculante e os efeitos de sua revisão ou cancelamento pelo STF para a coisa julgada.

Abstract

The institute of the relativity of the considered thing enters in apparent conflict witli tlie beginning of the legal security, but other values have deserved bigger attention as the beginning of the equality and of the justice of the decisions. The considered thing suffered a breaking in the model defended for Leibman, how much to the effect of the decision, with the sprouting of the class actions, the example of the Code of Defense of the Consumer and the Statute of the Child and Adolescent. The precedents judicial had been always used as formal source of the right in the legal system of common Law. The bedding of the respect to the precedents, in its origin, was the absence of legislated norm. Currently, the English and American right already coexists the right legislated as with the summary jurisprudence decisions in such a way. The system of the Law civilian if has misguided of the unconditional attachment to the law, giving bigger prominence the consolidated decisions of the courts. Of the changes passed for the two systems the sprouting of a mixing system is evidenced, applying in such a way the rules of the Law civilian as of common Law. The inserted binding abridgement in the Brazilian right for the emendation constitutional n° 45/2004 and regulated by the law n° and the 11,417/2006 resolutions n° 381, of 29 of October of 2008 and n° 388, of 5 of December of 2008 has mixing legal nature. And jurisdictional act for having origin in decisions reiterated on one same case concrete. It approaches to normative act for having general character and to be of obligator fulfilment for the agencies of the judiciary power and the direct and indirect public administration. The binding abridgement differentiates of the impeditive abridgement of refuses in virtue of its addressees. While that one is destined to compel the judge to apply the agreement summary for the Supreme Federal Court, this is destined to the losing party in the process that reveals the desire to appeal. The binding abridgement, when it deals with constitutional substance, approaches, how much to its effect (it raises omnes and former tunc), of the direct action of constitutionality/declaratory action of constitutionality. A summary time agreement for the unconstitutionality of a law device, cannot later proceeding to the revision of the statement, as well as is not possible that an institutional declared norm in intent control is submitted to the declaratory action of constitutionality. Of the legitimated ones to consider the creation, revision or cancellation of the abridgement it was extended by law 11,417/2006, (reaching the General Counsel for indigents of the Union, the Superior Courts, the Courts of Justice of States or the Federal District and Territories, the Regional Courts Federal, the Regional Courts of the Work, the Electoral Regional Courts and the Military Courts) with the objective to prevent the enplaster of the simulates agreements. The revision or cancellation of abridgement must receive differentiated treatment depending on the norm that it interprets (constitutional rules or constitutional rules).