Resultados de busca

This article aims to analyze the impact of the bankruptcy filing made by creditors on companies' operations and judicial recovery strategies. We will address the legal aspects involved, the immediate effects on business activities and the possible consequences for different stakeholders. The bankruptcy filing process by creditors represents one of the crucial moments in the life cycle of a company in financial difficulties. According to current legislation, creditors have the right to request the bankruptcy of a company when there is default in paying its debts. In this context, this article will examine the situations in which creditors can resort to this legal remedy, as well as the impacts of this request on business operations and judicial recovery strategies. 1.Legal Aspects and Causes for Filing for Bankruptcy: As provided for in the Bankruptcy Law (Law No. 11,101/2005), creditors may request the bankruptcy of a company when proven default in its obligations. This may occur after unsuccessful attempts to negotiate or renegotiate debts. Furthermore, financial mismanagement or fraud on the part of the debtor company may also be grounds for a bankruptcy filing by creditors. 2.Immediate Effects on Business Operations: The bankruptcy filing by creditors triggers a series of immediate effects on business operations. The company's assets may be frozen, impacting the ability to obtain credit and the continuity of activities. Suppliers and commercial partners may adopt a more cautious stance, increasing operational difficulties. Furthermore, the company temporarily loses control over its assets, which are now managed by a court-appointed judicial administrator. 3. Judicial Recovery Strategies and Challenges After Filing Bankruptcy: After filing for bankruptcy, the debtor company can seek judicial recovery as a way to reverse the situation. However, the bankruptcy filing by creditors can complicate this process, since the interests of creditors may conflict with the objectives of the company in recovery. The company must present a viable and coherent restructuring plan to persuade creditors and the court to approve its recovery. 4.Consequences for Stakeholders: _11100000-0000- 0000-0000-000000000111_ The effects of the bankruptcy filing by creditors extend to the company's various stakeholders. Employees may face uncertainty regarding the security of their jobs, while shareholders may suffer financial losses due to share declines in value. Suppliers may experience delays in payments and may consider suspending supply. The company's public image is also affected, which could harm its reputation and future business relationships. Final Considerations: The bankruptcy filing by creditors is a legal resource that can have profound impacts on companies' operations and judicial recovery strategies. Understanding the causes and consequences of this process is essential for all parties involved. Distressed businesses must carefully consider their options before reaching a critical point, and creditors must weigh the potential risks and benefits when choosing to file for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy laws and recovery strategies continue to evolve to meet the complex dynamics of this scenario.

This article investigates the classifications and types of causes that can trigger a bankruptcy filing, focusing on obligations to perform, unfulfilled coercive fines and situations of non-compliance with a contract or fiduciary alienation. Legal, economic and practical aspects related to these contexts will be addressed. The bankruptcy filing is a legal resource that aims to protect the interests of creditors when a company faces financial difficulties. This article aims to analyze the classifications and types of causes that lead to a bankruptcy filing, focusing on obligations to do, unhonored coercive fines and situations of non-compliance with a contract or fiduciary alienation. 1.Classifications of Causes for Bankruptcy Filing: _11100000 -0000-0000-0000-000000000111_ Law No. 11,101/2005, known as the Bankruptcy Law, establishes the grounds for filing for bankruptcy, however, the causes that can trigger the filing of bankruptcy can be grouped in different categories, including obligations to do, when the debtor company does not carry out a certain action, and coercive fines, financial penalties that are not complied with by the company. Furthermore, non-compliance with a contract or fiduciary alienation can also lead to a bankruptcy filing, such as failure to pay INSS for the work. 2. Types of Obligations to Perform, Coercive Fines and Non-Compliance with Contract or Fiduciary Disposal: In the context of obligations to do, situations such as failure to perform agreed services, failure to comply with court orders or failure to comply with certain actions may be the basis for a bankruptcy filing. As for unpaid coercive fines, failure to pay the financial penalties established by the judiciary may result in a bankruptcy filing. Additionally, non-compliance with a contract or fiduciary alienation, such as non-payment of financing or INSS debts on a project, can also trigger a bankruptcy filing. 3.Legal and Procedural Aspects: Bankruptcy legislation (Law nº 11,101/2005) establishes the legal bases for the presentation of bankruptcy requests based on different causes. The analysis of obligations to do, coercive fines and non-compliance with a contract or fiduciary alienation requires a deep understanding of the legal rules and procedures involved in these cases. 4.Economic and Practical Impacts: Failure to comply with obligations, whether through non-performance of services, non-payment of coercive fines or failure to comply with contracts, can have substantial economic and practical effects. In addition to the direct financial impacts, such situations may lead to the need for legal action by creditors, possibly culminating in a bankruptcy filing and liquidation of assets. Practical Considerations and Alternatives: Companies that find themselves in situations of obligations to perform, unhonored coercive fines or non-compliance with contracts or fiduciary alienation can seek alternatives to avoid filing for bankruptcy. This may include renegotiating contracts, seeking amicable solutions with creditors or fulfilling outstanding obligations. Final Considerations: The analysis of the classifications and types of causes that can trigger the bankruptcy filing offers valuable insights into the different situations in which this legal resource is triggered. Understanding the legal, economic and practical implications of these contexts is fundamental for a more comprehensive approach to bankruptcy processes and their relationship with different types of obligations and penalties and consequently maintaining business stability.

This article indicates the importance of the separation of powers as a fundamental principle in the Brazilian constitutional system, highlighting the function and interaction of the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary powers. The mechanisms that seek to ensure institutional balance and the independent action of each power are analyzed, as well as the contemporary challenges that arise in this context. The separation of powers is one of the foundations of the democratic system and the rule of law in Brazil. In this article, we examine the relevance of this principle for protecting citizens' rights and maintaining limited government, as well as the strategies employed to prevent the concentration of power. 1. Executive Power: Functions and Constitutional Limits: The role of the Executive Branch in conducting public administration and implementing government policies. We also discuss the control and oversight mechanisms exercised by the Legislative and Judiciary over the Executive, ensuring respect for constitutional principles. 2. Legislative Power: Representation and Legislative Process: The legislative function of the National Congress and legislative assemblies, highlighting the importance of representativeness and democratic participation in the drafting of laws. We also explore the processes of drafting, discussing and approving laws, as well as the role of the Legislature in controlling the Executive's actions. 3. Judiciary: Guarantee of Rights and Control of Constitutionality: The role of the Judiciary in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, its role as an interpreter of the Constitution and its responsibility to guarantee justice and impartiality. We also explore constitutionality control mechanisms, such as direct action for unconstitutionality, which allow the Judiciary to supervise the conformity of laws with the Constitution. 4. Institutional Balance and Separation of Powers: The importance of institutional balance to avoid excessive concentration of power in a single body or individual. We discuss how the system of checks and balances between powers seeks to ensure that no power governs arbitrarily, guaranteeing the protection of citizens' rights. 5. Contemporary Challenges: Current challenges, such as the need to improve transparency and accountability, as well as independent action in a complex political environment. Ethical and practical dilemmas are also discussed, such as the relationship between the justice system and political powers. Conclusion: The separation of powers is a central pillar of the Brazilian constitutional order, ensuring limited government, the protection of rights and the preservation of democracy. By balancing the functions and interactions of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, the system promotes stability and justice for the benefit of citizens. Constant vigilance and collaborative action are essential to maintain this balance and strengthen democracy in Brazil.

This article addresses the form of constitutionality control in Brazil, investigating its mechanisms, legal basis and the impact that its decisions generate on the country's legal order. With both the Federal Constitution and jurisprudence as a backdrop, this study explores how constitutionality control acts as an essential pillar in guaranteeing constitutional supremacy and protecting fundamental rights, while maintaining the cohesion and concatenation of the analyzes carried out. Constitutionality control, as a cornerstone of the Rule of Law, presents itself as a vital instrument to maintain the integrity of the Brazilian legal system. This article aims to dissect the different mechanisms through which constitutionality control occurs, evaluating the underlying legal support and exploring the repercussions that such decisions have on the country's legal order. 1. Constitutionality Control Mechanisms: Brazil adopts a hybrid system of constitutionality control, encompassing diffuse and concentrated systems. In the diffuse system, any magistrate or court, upon finding the possible incompatibility of a law with the Constitution, can apply the principle of non-reception, ensuring that the unconstitutional rule is not applied in the specific case. In the concentrated system, through Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) and Declaratory Actions of Constitutionality (ADCs), the Federal Supreme Court (STF) assumes the prerogative of being the last instance to resolve issues of unconstitutionality, providing uniformity to decisions and avoiding jurisprudential heterogeneity. 2. Supremacy of the Constitution and Protection of Fundamental Rights: The legal basis of constitutionality control rests on the premise of the supremacy of the Constitution, established in article 102 of the Federal Constitution of 1988. This principle, combined with article 5, which enshrines the rights and fundamental guarantees, gives rise to the declaration of unconstitutionality of rules that contradict these provisions. In this sense, constitutionality control plays a crucial role in the protection of fundamental rights, ensuring harmonization between normative acts and constitutional precepts. 3. Impact on Legal Relations: Decisions made in constitutionality control processes have effects that transcend the parties involved in the litigation. The binding force of these decisions, as provided for in article 102, § 2, of the Constitution, extends to all bodies of the Judiciary and public administration, impacting the validity and effectiveness of the rules declared unconstitutional. 4. Constitution and Jurisprudence as Sources of Constitutionality Control: The control of constitutionality, intrinsically linked to the Federal Constitution, finds a normative basis in article 102, section III, which gives the STF the competence to judge ADIs and ADCs. Furthermore, the STF's consolidated jurisprudence plays a fundamental role in establishing interpretative parameters, supporting the coherence and predictability of decisions. 5. Limits and Challenges of Constitutionality Control: Despite its importance, constitutionality control also faces challenges, such as excessive judicialization and an overload of demands at the STF. The complexity of some cases can generate heated debates and interpretative disputes, demonstrating the need for a balance between legal stability and flexibility in adapting to social changes. Conclusion: The constitutionality control system in Brazil, anchored in the Constitution and supported by jurisprudence, plays a fundamental role in maintaining the legal order, safeguarding fundamental rights and preserving supremacy constitutional. Its mechanisms and decisions shape legal relations in the country, while contributing to the evolution of the Brazilian legal framework.

This article covers the organization of powers in the Brazilian political system, the structure, competencies and interaction between the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary powers. The responsibilities of each power, their mechanisms of action and the importance of institutional balance for maintaining democracy and the rule of law are discussed. The organization of powers is a fundamental characteristic of the Brazilian political system. In this article, we investigate the distribution of functions and responsibilities between the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary, highlighting how this division aims to guarantee the limitation of state power and the protection of citizens' rights. 1. Executive Branch: Structure and Competencies: The structure of the Executive Branch, including the presidency of the Republic and the ministries, and its responsibilities in the administration of the country. We discuss the Executive's relationship with the elaboration and execution of public policies, as well as its role in economic management and international representation. 2. Legislative Power: Parliamentary Activities and Legislative Process: The organization of the Legislative Branch, composed of the National Congress and the legislative assemblies. We discussed the role of parliamentarians in representing the interests of the population and in drafting laws. We also explore the legislative process, from the presentation of projects to voting and presidential sanction. 3. Judiciary: Judicial System and Protection of Rights: The structure of the Judiciary, from the courts of first instance to the higher courts. We discuss the role of the Judiciary in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens, interpreting laws and resolving conflicts. We also highlight judicial independence as a pillar of democratic order. 4. Interaction between Powers: Checks and Balances: The interaction between powers, highlighting the notion of "checks and balances" (checks and balances) as a reciprocal control mechanism. We analyze how each branch exercises oversight functions over the others, preventing abuses and ensuring respect for constitutional principles. 5. Institutional Balance and Contemporary Challenges: The importance of institutional balance in maintaining democracy and the rule of law. We address current challenges, such as the search for greater transparency and accountability, the need to avoid excessive politicization of the Judiciary and the joint action of powers to address urgent issues. Conclusion: Therefore, the organization of powers is a central element in Brazil's political structure, contributing to the preservation of democracy and citizens' rights. The independent and harmonious action of the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary is essential to guarantee the effectiveness of institutions and the well-being of society. Constant vigilance and collaboration between powers are fundamental to face contemporary challenges and promote a stable and democratic governance environment.

This article seeks to demonstrate the importance of fundamental rights enshrined in the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, analyzing the historical evolution of these guarantees and the contemporary challenges that affect their application and effectiveness. Aspects related to the categorization of rights, relevant jurisprudence and the continuous need to adapt these guarantees in the face of social and technological transformations are discussed. Fundamental rights occupy a central position in the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, representing the implementation of democratic values and the protection of citizens against possible abuses of power. Over the decades, these rights have evolved and adapted to meet the challenges of an ever-changing society. 1. Evolution of Fundamental Rights in Brazil: Since its promulgation, the 1988 Constitution inaugurated a new era of recognition and guarantee of fundamental rights in Brazil. Inspired by universal principles and lessons from the country's authoritarian past, this Constitution established a landmark in the protection of individual and collective rights. Over the years, jurisprudence and the actions of bodies such as the Federal Supreme Court have contributed to consolidating and expanding the scope of these rights. 2. Categories of Fundamental Rights: Fundamental rights in Brazil encompass several interconnected categories. Individual rights, such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy, play a crucial role in defending individual freedoms. Social rights, including education and health, seek to promote equality and social justice. Political rights allow citizen participation in government decision-making, while cultural rights reinforce cultural diversity and national identity. 3. Contemporary Challenges: The contemporary era has brought with it unique challenges for the protection of fundamental rights. The increasing digitalization of society presents dilemmas regarding privacy and freedom of expression, requiring a review of traditional approaches. Furthermore, economic and social inequalities represent an obstacle to the full effectiveness of social and cultural rights, highlighting the need for comprehensive public policies. 4. Relevant Jurisprudence and Precedents: The jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court has played a fundamental role in the definition and interpretation of fundamental rights in Brazil. Emblematic cases, such as the recognition of same-sex unions and the decriminalization of drug possession for personal consumption, demonstrate the evolution of the protection of individual rights. Conclusion: Fundamental rights in the Brazilian Constitution represent an essential pillar of democracy and the rule of law. Despite the advances achieved, contemporary challenges highlight the constant need to adapt and review constitutional guarantees. The effective protection of fundamental rights requires a joint effort from society, the judiciary and government institutions, in order to ensure a more fair, egalitarian and democratic Brazil.

This article examines the concept and importance of the Rule of Law in the Brazilian context, highlighting the principles that underlie it and the contemporary challenges faced in the search for effective democratic governance. Aspects such as the separation of powers, equality before the law and the protection of citizens' fundamental rights are summarized. The Rule of Law is a fundamental pillar of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, reflecting the need to subject state power to legal norms and ensure the protection of citizens' rights. In this article, we explore the nature of the Rule of Law in Brazil, its legal basis and the complexities involved in maintaining this principle in a constantly evolving democratic environment. 1. Fundamental Principles of the Rule of Law: The Rule of Law is supported by essential principles that ensure the limitation of state power and the protection of individual rights. Legality, equality before the law, legal security and access to justice are central components of this system, promoting stability and predictability in social relations. 2. Separation of Powers and Judicial Independence: The Brazilian Constitution establishes the separation of powers as the basis of the democratic system. We analyze the interaction between the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary powers, highlighting the importance of judicial independence for maintaining the Rule of Law. 3. Contemporary Challenges: Technological evolution and social demands impose new challenges to the preservation of the Rule of Law. Issues such as protecting privacy in a digital environment, combating corruption and ensuring gender equality demonstrate the need for constant adaptation and reform of legal and institutional structures. 4. Guarantee of Fundamental Rights: The promotion and protection of citizens' fundamental rights are one of the main objectives of the Rule of Law. We discuss the importance of the role of the Judiciary and control bodies in safeguarding these rights, including in situations of conflict between different interests. Conclusion: The Rule of Law in Brazil plays a central role in promoting justice, equality and democracy. Despite the challenges, its preservation is essential to guarantee a society in which citizens can trust in the predictability of norms and the protection of their rights. Constant vigilance and collaborative action from all sectors of society are necessary to ensure that the Rule of Law continues to be a solid foundation for democratic governance in Brazil.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the issue of moral damage, highlighting its repair and the limits of compensation imposed by doctrine and jurisprudence, with emphasis on the understanding of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The analysis covers the theoretical foundation and the legal bases that underlie the responsibility for moral damages, as well as the current most accepted by the courts about the indemnity value. The discussion seeks to understand the criteria used to quantify moral damage, in order to promote a reflection on the principles that should guide its repair and prevent abuses in the setting of indemnities. Moral damage, even though it is a complex topic, has been consolidated in Brazilian jurisprudence as an important instrument for the protection of personality rights. This article aims to explore the legal bases and understandings consolidated by the courts, with emphasis on the Superior Court of Justice, on the limits of compensation for moral damages. 1. Civil liability and compensation for moral damage Civil liability presupposes the existence of damage, an unlawful act and the causal link between both. In the case of moral damage, its objective is to mitigate the suffering experienced by the victim, providing compensation for the damage caused. The basis for repairing moral damages is found both in the Brazilian Civil Code, in its article 5, and in the jurisprudence of the courts. 2. The quantification of moral damage The quantification of the indemnity value of moral damage is a topic that raises debates and different doctrinal and jurisprudential positions. The Superior Court of Justice, considered the last instance in the infraconstitutional scope, has consolidated understandings that guide the lower courts. In general, the STJ adopts the current that seeks to avoid excesses and undervaluations in indemnity amounts, taking into account criteria such as the intensity of the damage suffered, the repercussion of the damage, the economic capacity of the parties involved, as well as the pedagogical and punitive purpose of the repair. 3. Limits for compensation for moral damages according to the STJ The understanding of the STJ is that there should be no fixed and previously established limits for compensation for moral damages, since each case must be analyzed individually, considering its particularities. However, the Court seeks to avoid exorbitant amounts, establishing reasonableness in fixing the indemnity. To this end, criteria such as proportionality in relation to the damage suffered, the severity of the offense committed, the economic condition of the offender and the victim, among others, are adopted. 4. Final considerations The moral damage and its reparation are themes of great relevance in the legal field, seeking the protection of fundamental rights and the fair compensation of the offended. The understanding of the STJ, although it does not establish predetermined limits, promotes a careful analysis, taking into account the individuality of each case. It is essential that there is a balance between fair compensation and the principle of proportionality in order to avoid abuses and ensure effective protection of personality rights.

This scientific article discusses the effects of contractual termination pursuant to paragraph two of article 34 and improvements, pursuant to the same paragraph, of law 6766/79. In addition, it explores the situation in which the seller makes the payment in 12 installments, as provided for in Article 32-A. However, there is a legal divergence in relation to Precedent 1 of the Court of São Paulo, which provides for the full return in a single payment. Additionally, case law and the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the subject are analyzed. The contractual resolution of real estate transactions involves complex legal issues, especially when discussing the return of amounts paid by the buyer in case of termination. In this sense, the second paragraph of article 34 and the approach to improvements, as established in law 6766/79, are fundamental for us to understand the effects of this resolution, when the seller opts for payment in 12 installments, as provided for in article 32-A . However, it is important to point out that there is a divergence in case law, especially in relation to Precedent 1 of the Court of São Paulo, which determines the full return in a single payment. In addition, the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) on the matter will be analyzed. The second paragraph of Article 34 of Law 6766/79 provides for the possibility of restitution of improvements made to properties when the contract is terminated. In this context, the seller may choose to make the return in monthly installments, as established in article 32-A. This form of payment in installments provides more flexibility and financial viability to the seller and, eventually, to the buyer. However, there is a relevant divergence in the courts regarding the return in installments, especially in relation to Precedent 1 of the Court of São Paulo, which determines the full return in a single payment. This summary is contrary to the forecast of payment in installments established by law. In this sense, there is a dissonance between the jurisprudential interpretation and the current legislation. However, it is important to note that jurisprudence has evolved on this issue. The Superior Court of Justice has been called upon to issue an opinion on the subject and has adopted positions that consider the feasibility of payment in installments, in line with the provisions of article 32-A of law 6766/79. This position has been adopted based on the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, which take into account the seller's financial capacity and the need to guarantee reimbursement to the buyer within reasonable periods. Conclusion: The contractual resolution in the real estate context, when there is the option of return in installments by the seller, as provided for in law 6766/79, generates debates on the effects and obligations related to the restitution of the improvements made. In this context, the jurisprudential divergence presented by the summary 1 of the Court of São Paulo, which determines the full return in a single payment, contrasts with the legal provision of payment in installments. However, it is important to highlight that case law has evolved on this issue and the STJ has positioned itself in favor of the possibility of payment in installments, taking into account the reasonableness and proportionality of the situation. In this way, it is essential that the parties involved in the contractual resolution process seek solutions that are in compliance with the legislation and the most recent jurisprudential decisions, guaranteeing a fair and balanced resolution for all parties involved.

This scientific article aims to analyze the differences between fiduciary alienation and mortgage, highlighting their effects and developments according to jurisprudence and the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The concepts of each institute, its legal effects, practical aspects and the most recent decisions of the courts on the subject will be addressed. In the field of real estate law, fiduciary alienation and mortgage are institutes widely used to guarantee the payment of debts related to real estate. Although they have similar purposes, these two institutes have significant differences in relation to their effects and consequences. In this article, we will discuss the distinctions between fiduciary alienation and mortgage, based on jurisprudence and the position of the STJ, in order to provide an in-depth understanding of these topics. 1. Fiduciary Sale: Fiduciary alienation is an institute provided for in Law nº 9.514/97, which allows the debtor to transfer ownership of an asset to the creditor as a guarantee for a debt. In this case, the creditor becomes the fiduciary, and the debtor the fiduciary. The main characteristic of fiduciary alienation is the fact that, while the debt is not settled, the trustee has direct possession of the asset, and the debtor has only indirect possession. In case of default, the fiduciary may auction the alienated asset to settle the debt. 2. Mortgage: The mortgage, in turn, is an institute regulated by the Civil Code, in which the debtor (mortgant) grants the creditor (mortgage holder) a real right of guarantee over an immovable property for the payment of a debt. In this case, unlike fiduciary alienation, the debtor maintains direct possession of the asset and can enjoy it normally. In the event of default, the creditor may request the foreclosure of the mortgage in court to obtain satisfaction of the credit, and may take the property to public auction. 3. Legal Effects: The main difference between fiduciary alienation and mortgage lies in the form of guarantee and the effects in case of default. The fiduciary alienation gives the creditor a property right over the good, while in the mortgage the creditor only has a preemptive right over the property. In addition, in fiduciary alienation, the transfer of ownership is automatic, while in mortgages formalization is required through a contract and subsequent registration at the Real Estate Registry Office. 4. Jurisprudence and Positioning of the STJ: With regard to jurisprudence and the position of the STJ, it is important to note that this is a subject in constant evolution. The STJ has already issued relevant decisions on fiduciary alienation and mortgages, establishing understandings that have influence in future cases. It is common for there to be debates about the limits and possible abuses of each institute, as well as respect for the debtor's rights. Conclusion: In short, fiduciary alienation and mortgage are legal institutes used to guarantee the payment of debts related to real estate, but they have differences in relation to their effects and legal consequences. The jurisprudence and the positioning of the STJ play a fundamental role in the interpretation and resolution of conflicts related to these institutes. Thus, it is essential that legal professionals, as well as parties involved in real estate contracts, are up to date on these decisions to ensure proper and fair application of legal rules.

This scientific article addresses the differences between possession and property, focusing on species and consequences, in the light of legislation, jurisprudence of Brazilian courts and the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). In addition, the concept of tolerance and the distinction between regular tenure and precarious tenure will be explored, elucidating their legal impacts. This article aims to analyze the differences between possession and property from a legal perspective, presenting their species and consequences, with emphasis on the jurisprudence of Brazilian courts, notably the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The concept of tolerance and the distinction between regular and precarious possession will also be addressed, highlighting its effects in the legal field. 1. Possession: Possession consists in the actual exercise of power over a thing, with the intention of having it as yours. It can be classified into direct possession, when there is physical contact and occupation of the property, and indirect possession, when someone holds power, even without physical interaction with the property. Furthermore, it is important to mention the existence of regular possession and precarious possession, the latter characterized by the absence of a legitimate title for the exercise of possession. 2. Property: Property is the broadest right that a person can have over a good, giving him the power to use, enjoy, dispose of and claim the thing. It is an absolute right, constitutionally guaranteed and provided for in the Civil Code. Unlike possession, ownership gives the holder exclusivity and full powers over the property. 3. Differences and Consequences: The differences between possession and property relate to the powers exercised over the good. While possession is characterized as a de facto power, property constitutes a right. In addition, tolerance is a key element in distinguishing regular tenure from precarious tenure. Regular possession is exercised with the owner's consent, characterizing a concession or permission relationship, without implying the transfer of property rights. Precarious possession, on the other hand, is exercised without authorization or legitimate title, and can be temporarily maintained by the owner's will, but, at any time, it can be withdrawn. 4. Tolerance and Precarious Tenure: Tolerance is an important factor in differentiating between regular tenure and precarious tenure. It refers to the owner's acceptance of allowing another person to occupy his property, even without express authorization. This tolerance may be expressed through an informal or tacit agreement, and may be revoked whenever the owner so desires. In this sense, precarious possession is established as a fragile condition, subject to termination at any time, without the need for a judicial process. 5. STJ Jurisprudence and Positioning: In the jurisprudential field, especially in the STJ, there are numerous precedents on cases involving the differentiation between possession and property, as well as tolerance and precarious possession. The STJ has positioned itself in the sense of considering the existence of an informal or tacit occupation agreement, when the owner's tolerance is demonstrated, recognizing the precarious nature of this possession. Conclusion: Understanding the differences between possession and property is essential for the proper application of civil law. In this context, the analysis of jurisprudence and the position of the STJ provides an in-depth view on the subject, especially when considering the existence of tolerance and the distinction between regular tenure and precarious tenure. It is essential that legal practitioners and parties involved in disputes have up-to-date knowledge of STJ case law, ensuring a better understanding and interpretation of the rules, as well as the fair resolution of disputes.

This scientific article addresses freedom of expression and thought as fundamental rights that must be protected for both parties involved. We will explore the effects, consequences and the importance of reciprocity between those who exercise these rights. In addition, we will highlight the need for balance in the constitutional protection of these principles, considering the context presented. Freedom of expression and thought are fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, however, it is essential to note that the protection of these rights covers both parties involved in a communication context. In this article, we will explore the effects, consequences and importance of reciprocity between those who exercise these rights and highlight the need for balance in the constitutional protection of these principles. 1. Freedom of Expression and Thought as Fundamental Rights: Freedom of expression and thought are pillars of democracy and guarantee the possibility of expressing opinions, ideas and thoughts without prior censorship. These rights are fundamental for the exercise of citizenship and the promotion of plural and open public debate. 2. Reciprocity as a Principle in Freedom of Expression and Thought: Reciprocity plays an essential role in the exercise of freedom of expression and thought. This is the principle of respecting the right of others to express their opinions, just as one has the right to express one's own ideas. Reciprocity implies recognizing that an individual's freedom finds its limits when it interferes with the rights and dignity of the other. 3. Equilibrium in Constitutional Protection: While freedom of expression and thought are fundamental rights, it is important to note that constitutional protection should not favor just one of the parties involved. The balance in the protection of fundamental rights seeks to ensure that none of the individuals involved exercise their freedom in an abusive or harmful way to the rights and interests of the other. 4. Effects and Consequences: The effects of freedom of expression and thought can have significant impacts on society. Public demonstrations can lead to social change, promote important debates and even influence political decisions. However, the consequences of these rights must also be considered, especially when there are violations of the rights of third parties, moral damages or incitement to hatred and violence. 5. Mutual Responsibility: The constitutional protection of fundamental rights requires the observance of reciprocal responsibility between those who exercise freedom of expression and thought. Both parties must be guided by mutual respect, avoiding abuse, defamation, slander and other forms of violation of rights. Liability for the violation of these rights may result in civil, administrative and criminal penalties. Conclusion: Freedom of expression and thought are fundamental rights that must be protected for both parties involved in a communication context. Reciprocity in these rights implies mutual respect and consideration of the limits of others. The balance in the constitutional protection of these principles is fundamental to guarantee a democratic and harmonious coexistence. Mutual responsibility among those who exercise freedom of expression and thought is essential to avoid abuses and violations of the rights of others. Thus, it is necessary that the civil, administrative and criminal spheres act in line with the legislation, jurisprudence and understanding of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in order to promote this balance and ensure the full exercise of these fundamental rights.