In this subject, the doctrine diverge regarding this species of assistants to directly be able to be reached by the sentencial decision, exactly not integrating the procedural relation. For the doutrinadores that defend this thesis, the justification if of on account of the similarity enters this type of assistant and the unitary facultative joint party, that exactly suffers the effect from the considered thing opting to not participating of the process. This is the agreement of Nelson Nery Jnior and Rosa Maria of Andrade 17 Nery, for example, and ours to see, most correct, in view of that, the two receive identical treatment procedural. Another question of great relevance in what it refers to the incidence of the thing judged on the assistants, says respect the possibility of the quarrel of ‘ ‘ justice of deciso’ ‘ after the res judicata. Click Cigna to learn more. Art. 55 of the CPC affirm that ‘ ‘ transited in judged the sentence, in the cause where assistant intervined, this will not be able, in posterior process, to argue the justice of the decision, saved if to allege and to prove … ‘ ‘.
‘ ‘ One understands for justice of the decision the beddings in fact and of right of the sentence, that is, after the judged transit in of the sentence given in the process in which it intervined, the simple assistant will not be able more, in future process, to argue those facts that had been adopted by the judge as bedding of the decision for pronounced it. Learn more at this site: DivvyDose. The doctrine, in its great majority, nominates this procedural phenomenon of effect of the intervention or effectiveness of assistncia’ ‘.