<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="https://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim https://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="https://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>00921nam a2200193   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="001">370010</controlfield>
  <datafield tag="090" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">370010</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">20020405u           y0pory50      ba</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="101" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">por</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="200" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">A reforma do processo civil</subfield>
    <subfield code="e">tr&#xEA;s anos depois</subfield>
    <subfield code="f">Jo&#xE3;o Fernando Fernandes Magalh&#xE3;es </subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="330" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Apresentada na Escola de Direito da Universidade do Minho, em Maio de 2000, no &#xE2;mbito das Jornadas de Direito dos Registos, a presente comunica&#xE7;&#xE3;o constitui uma aprecia&#xE7;&#xE3;o cr&#xED;tica sobre a reforma do processo civil, tr&#xEA;s anos depois de esta reforma ter ocorrido.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="461" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">Braga</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">Janeiro-Abril 2001</subfield>
    <subfield code="v">V. 50, n. 289</subfield>
    <subfield code="t">Scientia Ivridica</subfield>
    <subfield code="x">0870-8185</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">p. 109-114</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">PROCESSO CIVIL</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="606" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">C&#xD3;DIGO CIVIL</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="700" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">MAGALH&#xC3;ES</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">Jo&#xE3;o Fernando Fernandes</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="995" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="5">2022-06-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">397791</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">PJ</subfield>
    <subfield code="c">PJ</subfield>
    <subfield code="n">2022-06-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="o">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">AP</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
