FRANÇA, D. C.; http://lattes.cnpq.br/3916503614812821; FRANÇA, Danylle Campos de.
Resumo:
The present paper aims to study the intervention of the individual as active joint
group in Collective Actions to defend homogeneous individual rights by Article 94 of
the Consumer Protection Code. Addressing to the issue, the support of the research
focuses on the argument that it is necessary to know the Collective Action brought by
the aforementioned Code, with a view on the institute of the joint group that diverges
from the teachings affected by traditional Civil Procedure. Based on the foregoing, it
analyzes the theme posited as general purpose and clarifies the situation of the
individual, illegitimate to propose a Collective Action as active joint group of this
action, as well to understand the consequences of the institute on the Res Judicata in
these actions. And specifically it aims to determine the appropriateness of the
Consumer Code as an instrument for the defense of individual and collective rights,
addressing to the intriguing question about the active legitimacy and its expansion
coming from the referred Code, to show the difference between the interests or
diffuse rights , collective and homogenous individuals, as well to profile the Civil
Public Action regulated by Law of Civil Public Action and the Collective Action by
statute of the consumer. In order to this purpose, the deductive method is used as
approach, and as methods of procedure, the method of the historical evolution as
well as the method of structuralism are used, and for the search technique, indirect
documentation is used. In this regard, note that the joinder brought by the Spatial of
the Consumer is innovative and different compared to the traditional normative
situation, knowing that the consumer prejudiced can’t propose Collective Action in
defense of their own rights, the consumer should not be able to appear as active joint
group in action, and such intervention of the joint group is disqualified when it refers
to the Res Judicata in this action, knowing that it is more beneficial to the individual to
remain inert before the Colective Actions qualifies itself as joint group, because not
inserting itself as the joint party, the individual will be benefited as the res judicata
will be favorable, it also may enter individually with an action to repair damage
suffered when the res judicata of Collective Action will be unfounded, however, if the
individual will join the action, as well in case of an application rejected, this
consumer will lose the right of individual petition.