| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 558.73 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
A presente dissertação tem por base o designado Processo Especial de Revitalização judicial, regulado nos artigos 17.º-A a 17.º-H do Código de Insolvência e Recuperação de Empresas, que, pese embora reserve um papel interventivo mínimo ao juiz, lhe submete também à consideração complexas questões na determinante fase de homologação do plano de recuperação aprovado. Assim, para o controlo da legalidade, estrito domínio da intervenção judicial neste instrumento jurídico, deve o julgador ter em conta vícios atinentes ao procedimento e ao âmbito material do dispositivo do plano. Selecionamos duas problemáticas controvertidas na doutrina e na jurisprudência para debate e tomada de posição, elucidativas da urgência de uma reforma legislativa neste quadro. Para uma discussão orientada, é também empreendido um esforço de construção de um referencial hermenêutico e de uma reflexão sobre o espaço conferido à função jurisdicional. A conclusão obtida do estudo intentado evidencia algumas das maiores fragilidades do regime, expressas nas suas incoerências e desarmonias com os propósitos assumidos pelo legislador e com outros diplomas normativos.
The present master’s dissertation is based on the so-called judicial Processo Especial de Revitalização (Special Revitalization Procedure), regulated in articles 17.º-A to 17.º-H of the Company Insolvency and Recovery Code, which, despite granting a minimal intervention role to the judge, also submits to their consideration complex matters in the decisive approved recovery plan’s judicial homologation stage. Therefore, for legality verification purposes, which is the strict domain of judicial intervention in this legal instrument, the judge is required to ponder legal defects related to the plan’s procedure and scope. We select two controversial legal doctrine and jurisprudence issues to debate and take a stand on, both illustrative examples of the urgency of a legislative reform in this field. For a guided discussion, an effort to construct a hermeneutic referential and to reflect on the space given to the judicial function is also undertaken. The conclusion obtained from the study highlights some of the major weaknesses of the legal regime, manifested in its inconsistencies and dissonances regarding legislator’s commitments and other legal acts.
The present master’s dissertation is based on the so-called judicial Processo Especial de Revitalização (Special Revitalization Procedure), regulated in articles 17.º-A to 17.º-H of the Company Insolvency and Recovery Code, which, despite granting a minimal intervention role to the judge, also submits to their consideration complex matters in the decisive approved recovery plan’s judicial homologation stage. Therefore, for legality verification purposes, which is the strict domain of judicial intervention in this legal instrument, the judge is required to ponder legal defects related to the plan’s procedure and scope. We select two controversial legal doctrine and jurisprudence issues to debate and take a stand on, both illustrative examples of the urgency of a legislative reform in this field. For a guided discussion, an effort to construct a hermeneutic referential and to reflect on the space given to the judicial function is also undertaken. The conclusion obtained from the study highlights some of the major weaknesses of the legal regime, manifested in its inconsistencies and dissonances regarding legislator’s commitments and other legal acts.
Description
Keywords
PER Recuperação Plano Aprovação Homologação Juiz Quóruns Créditos fiscais Recovery Plan Homologation Judge Quorums Tax credits