This scientific article aims to analyze the differences between non-existent and null sentences, highlighting their legal consequences in the context of the hypotheses for the appropriateness of the rescission action for offense to the legal norm. The legal and doctrinal foundations that support the existence of these categories will be addressed, as well as the practical implications that arise from each of them, especially with regard to the possibility of rescinding these sentences.
Judicial sentences play a fundamental role in the legal system, guaranteeing the effectiveness of law in a society. However, not all sentences are valid, and it is important to distinguish between nonexistent and null sentences. In this article, we will examine the differences between these categories, their legal consequences and, specifically, we will discuss the possibility of using rescissory action as a means of rescinding judgments that offended legal norms.
1. Nonexistent Sentences:
Non-existent judgments are those that lack legal existence since their delivery. They are considered null from the beginning, since they violate essential requirements for the validity of the judicial decision, such as absolute competence, form or essential element of the act. In this context, the rescission action is not applicable, as these sentences do not produce any effect in the legal system.
2. Null Sentences:
Null sentences, in turn, have legal existence, but were handed down with some defect that makes them invalid. In these cases, it is possible to use the rescission action as a means of rescinding these judgments when there is a direct or frontal offense against a legal rule, provided that a period of two years is observed from the final and unappealable decision. Rescissory action allows a null judgment to be effectively rescinded and its legal result undone.
3. Hypotheses of Pertinence of Rescissory Action for Offense to Legal Standard:
A rescission action for violating the legal norm is an exceptional measure that aims to correct serious and manifest errors committed in judicial decisions. The hypotheses for this action are provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure and require that the sentence has directly offended legal or constitutional provisions, causing damage to the parties involved. These hypotheses must be interpreted in a restrictive way, guaranteeing legal certainty and the stability of judicial decisions.
4. Legal Consequences and Practical Implications:
Non-existent judgments, as they are not valid from the outset, do not generate effects in the legal system, and it is not necessary to formally annul them. On the other hand, null sentences, although they have a legal existence, can be rescinded through rescission action, if the violation of the legal norm is proven. It is important to emphasize that the rescission of a null judgment does not necessarily imply the invalidity of all decisions taken based on it, requiring a thorough examination of the case in question.
Conclusion:
The judgments judged by the Judiciary can be classified as non-existent or null, each with its particularities and legal consequences. While non-existent judgments are not valid from the outset, null judgments have legal existence, but may be subject to rescission action if there is a direct offense to the legal norm. The use of rescission action is an exceptional measure, which aims to correct serious and manifest errors committed in judicial decisions. The in-depth study of the legal and doctrinal foundations related to these categories and the rescission action contributes to a better understanding of the legal consequences and practical implications arising from non-existent, null sentences and their possibility of rescission for violating the legal norm.
Commentaires