A (I)RREVERSIBILIDADE DOS EFEITOS DAS DECISÕES JUDICIAIS NOS PROCESSOS PREVIDENCIÁRIOS:
A APLICAÇÃO DO TEMA N. 692 DO STJ NOS ACÓRDÃOS DO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2025.84893Abstract
The civil procedural coding establishes, as a rule, that the person benefiting from provisional urgent relief is objectively responsible for indemnifying or reimbursing, as the case may be, the harmed party if this measure is subsequently overturned by the final relief. However, the return of social security benefits received by force of anticipatory relief subsequently revoked raises divergent interpretations in domestic jurisprudence, including within the scope of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the Supreme Federal Court (STF). This article aims to answer the following research problem: to what extent does the São Paulo State Court of Justice (TJSP) recognize the reversibility of the effects of judicial decisions in social security processes, through the application of theme no. 692 of the STJ in its rulings? The general objective is to identify the extent to which the TJSP recognizes the reversibility of the effects of judicial decisions in social security processes, through the application of theme no. 692 of the STJ in its rulings. To this end, the article examines the relationship between anticipatory relief and the reversibility of judicial decisions in social security processes, investigates the position of the STJ and the STF on the subject, and studies the jurisprudence of the TJSP on the matter. Regarding methodological aspects, the research is classified as documentary and bibliographic, as well as focusing on the Decision Analysis Methodology (DAM), adopting a quantitative and qualitative approach. As results, it is observed, in summary, that, although in the primary examinations of appeal resources repetitiveness prevails, the analysis of these data together with those of reconsideration for compliance judgment, allows concluding the predominance, in the São Paulo Court, of the understanding of the non-repetition of amounts received under anticipatory relief subsequently reformed. By fractional body, it is found that, of the two bodies competent to examine the matter, the 16th Public Law Chamber decided, mostly, for non-repetition, while the 17th Public Law Chamber resolved all the cases submitted to it for repetition, in application of theme no. 692 of the STJ. It is concluded that the internal dissonance of the TJSP undermines the coherence and integrity of its jurisprudence, contrary to art. 926 of the CPC/2015, and that the percentage prevalence of rulings that do not comply with the theme set by the STJ offends the precedent system provided for in art. 927, III, of the CPC/2015, causing legal uncertainty and unpredictability for those under jurisdiction and discrediting the Judiciary.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mônica Mota Tassigny, Paula Valverde Santos, Paulo Henrique Lima Soares
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Todos os artigos publicados na Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual (REDP) (Departamento de Direito Processual, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) são licenciados por meio de uma Licença Creative Commons - Atribuição 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0).
Os autores retêm os direitos autorais de seu artigo e concordam em licenciar seu trabalho com a licença CC BY 4.0, aceitando assim os termos e condições específicos desta licença disponíveis no seguinte website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
- Os autores concedem à REDP o direito de primeira publicação, de se identificar como publicadora original do trabalho e concedem à revista uma licença de direitos não exclusivos para utilizar o trabalho das seguintes formas: Reproduzir, vender e distribuir cópias eletrônicas ou impressas do manuscrito como um todo, de partes específicas do manuscrito e de suas traduções para qualquer idioma;
- O uso do artigo por terceiros é livre, contanto que a integridade da publicação seja mantida e seus autores originais, periódico de primeira publicação e detalhes de citação sejam identificados.
Dentro dos termos da licença, os autores podem entrar em acordos contratuais adicionais separados para a distribuição não exclusiva da versão publicada do trabalho na revista.
Copyright and Licensing
All articles published in the Procedural Law Electronic Review (REDP) (Department of Procedural Law, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Authors retain copyright to their article and agree to license their work under the CC BY 4.0 license, thereby accepting the specific terms and conditions of this license available at the following website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ legal code.
- Authors grant REDP the right of first publication, to identify itself as the original publisher of the work, and grant the journal a non-exclusive license to use the work in the following ways: Reproduce, sell and distribute electronic or printed copies of the manuscript as a whole, of specific parts of the manuscript and its translations into any language;
- Use of the article by third parties is free, as long as the integrity of the publication is maintained and its original authors, first publication journal, and citation details are identified.
Within the terms of the license, authors may enter into separate additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work in the journal.
