A intervenção da seguradora nas acções propostas contra o segurado

The problem to be discussed results from the relationship established between the insurer and insured by the conclusion of an insurance contract, namely an optional liability insurance contract, to cover the risks taken by the insured resulting from the occurrence of a claim, such as those arising from the emergence of the liability and consequent obligation to compensate damages caused to a third party. This thesis concerns thus the debate between those who consider that, in the optional insurance, the third party may require compliance with the provision to both the insured and the insurer (in the case of voluntary joinder, pursuant to Art. 27 CCP, which corresponds Art. 32 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, Law n. 41/2013 of 26 June, which entered into force on 1 September, hereinafter New Code) - insurance contract on behalf of a third party conception - in the same way that the insured defendant can bring the insurer to intervene as co-defendant in the main process, pursuant al. a) of art. 325 of the CCP (corresponding to art. 316 of the New Code - main intervention caused), and those who argue that the insurer may only intervene in the action as an ancillary party, to assist the defendant, lacking interest, therefore, in necessary or volunteer joinder, with the consequence that the insurer cannot be sued as a main party - only ancillary intervention is justifiable (cf. art. 330 CPC, which corresponds to art. 321 of the New Code).

O processo sumário e a reforma do Código do Processo Penal de 2013

The present work aims to develop the theme "The summary procedure and the reform of 2013". The purpose of its analysis serves the interest to understand the virtues and disadvantages of the changes introduced by Act n.º 20/2013 to our Code of Criminal Procedure, and the main focus of the present reflection is to further the impact of the measures taken by the legislator to the summary proceedings. The opening of the most serious crimes to summary procedure is a reform measure duly highlighted because it is a true innovation in the Portuguese penal system. Therefore, it urges to analyse not only the consequences of this measure, as well as if the objectives of its introduction in the summary procedure system are met. It should be noted that the legislator intends to promote speedy trial, and at the same time, ensure compliance with the Constitutional rights associated to the accused. At this point it is important to realize if there is a restriction of the accused essential guarantees. On the other hand, it should be noted that the typical characteristics of summary proceedings might have been invariably modified, due to the innovative aspect of the reform. That said, the changes might have fostered a mischaracterization of the typical format of the summary procedure, both in terms of the nature of the proceedings and in terms of its space and objectives within the penal system. Reflecting on the above will provide a deeper understanding of the volatile balance between the Portuguese governing prosecution efficiency and the Constitution, as well as the future of the criminal policy in Portugal.