Therefore, Di Pietro (2002) also affirms that he is for concession of the provisory immission in the ownership the legislator establishes, beyond the allegation of urgency, the previous deposit of determined amount (DL 3,365/41, art. 15). It also establishes that the setting of this value must in accordance with be made art. 685 of the CPC, that foresees the necessity of court appraisal of the expropriated good. In accordance with DNIT (2006), the STJ already seated jurisprudence in the direction of that only the caption of art. 15 were accepted for the Federal Constitution of 1988, fixing, that for provisory emission in the ownership the production of judicial finding of provisory evaluation is indispensable, in order to make sure it justice of the indemnity.
However, the STF is located in the completely opposing direction, in old decisions that more perhaps do not reflect the current positioning of the same. It is perceived, affirms I castrate (2002), that the STJ it attends reason. First because the norm Constitutional it assures the right to the perception of an indemnity joust, and that, therefore, to reflect the real value of the damage suffered for the expropriated one, it must be the value of market of the good and not that one fixed unilaterally for the Public Power for mere fiscal effect. As I castrate (2002), with this, wants if it considers that the withdrawal of the ownership means the exhaustion of the proper expression of the property right, wants if it faces ownership and property as right autonomous worker in one another understanding of the situation the joust indemnity is estimated previous for withdrawal of the ownership. The evaluation that must be effected, according to Steps (1982), only exhibits the adjetivao of provisory in reason of the circumstance of the urgency with that it is made, accurately for attendance of the urgency, that is estimated legal for the provisory immission in the ownership.