A mediação e a conciliação de demandas repetitivas: os meios consensuais de resolução de disputas e os grandes litigantes do judiciário

- Divulgação dos SUMÁRIOS das obras recentemente incorporadas ao acervo da Biblioteca Ministro Oscar Saraiva do STJ. Em respeito à Lei de Direitos Autorais, não disponibilizamos a obra na íntegra.- Localização na estante: 347.925 A839

WHY THE “HAVES” COME OUT AHEAD IN BRAZIL? REVISITING SPECULATIONS CONCERNING REPEAT PLAYERS AND ONE-SHOOTERS IN THE BRAZILIAN LITIGATION SETTING

Galanter’s speculations regarding the configuration and advantages of repeat players in the litigation game have been extremely relevant to understand institution, rules and actors in North American litigation, as well as the reflection on the limits and potentialities of a redistributive approach to judicial litigation. This essay attempts to read the Brazilian litigation landscape by also reversing the end of the telescope, as Galanter proposed, and focusing in the players of the litigation game. Such approach seems utterly relevant, considering that recent reforms have purported the urgent need to deal with growing caseloads of individual repeated litigation filed for or against repeat players by one-shooters. The idea is to better understand these reforms considering the role played by the different actors of the system. Though also a speculative essay, it is possible to infer that repeat players enjoy great advantages in the Brazilian setting and can influence judicial and procedural reforms in order to maintain and strengthen its capabilities of maneuvering a highly overloaded judicial system. The empowerment of one-shooters, one the other hand, relies on a redistributive approach to access to justice, prioritizing proceedings and structures that provide for an easier access and more adequate responses to individual claims involving such litigants

Settlement in repeated litigation: repeat players in court conciliation and mediation.

Direito processual civil, Mediação e conciliação, Reforma judiciáriaThe proliferation of individual claims repeating factual and/or legal matters have inspired procedural reforms aimed at the standardization of judgments, the consolidation of precedents and the collectivization of individual claims and searching for effectiveness and legal certainty. Another important response to this repeated litigation is the promotion of consensual dispute resolution, especially conciliation and mediation in the courts. This research investigates how consensual mechanisms are used by courts to deal with repeated litigation and which are the practices and techniques specifically aimed at repeated disputes. The characteristic elements of these repeated disputes are the similarity of the factual and/or legal arguments, the representativeness of the volume of claims and the fact that one of the parties litigates in similar disputes more often, while the other in involved in such type of cases only occasionally. These repeat players are known as the great litigants of the Judiciary, and enjoy certain advantages in terms of bargaining power, resources and information in view of their size and the frequency with which they are involved with similar cases. An empirical research was carried out court programs in Brazil and the United States to study the perceptions of the actors involved in the design and operation these programas on the issues raised. It was found that repeated litigation is a crucial part of court conciliation and mediation programs, influencing the role of the main stakeholders (parties, lawyers and conciliators/mediators), screening and case management practices, access conditions, specific techniques and the role played the Judiciary, who shall also act as manager, designer and institutional mediator. It is concluded that the structure of these programs and the role of those involved can be key factors for an adequate treatment of repeated disputes in the judicial context

Access to justice and mechanisms for judging repeated cases

As técnicas processuais de julgamento de casos repetitivos expressam uma tendência de reformas informadas pela promoção de maior segurança jurídica e eficiência na prestação jurisdicional. O Código de Processo Civil de 2015 destaca o Incidente de Resolução de Demandas Repetitivas e o recurso especial e extraordinário repetitivos como técnicas de formação de teses jurídicas acerca de questões jurídicas repetitivas, a serem aplicadas em casos pendentes e futuros. Assim, a tese busca problematizar a relação entre essas técnicas processuais e a noção de acesso à justiça, levantando-se, ainda, perguntas específicas sobre (i) como os litigantes repetitivos e ocasionais utilizam e são afetados pela aplicação dessas técnicas e sobre (ii) como se dá a participação e a representação dos interesses dos destinatários da tese jurídica. As hipóteses traçadas foram as de que (i) tais técnicas tendem a favorecer uma utilização mais estratégica por parte dos litigantes repetitivos e que (ii) os interesses dos \"ausentes\" e dos \"sobrestados\" são representados de forma deficiente (déficit de representatividade) no julgamento de casos repetitivos, mesmo com a participação de amicus curiae ou a realização de audiência pública. Com relação ao conceito de \"acesso à justiça\", deve este ser compreendido como um direito social a uma efetiva participação no sistema de justiça que viabilize o seu uso na promoção das transformações sociais necessárias para superação das desigualdades persistentes em nossa sociedade. Além disso, o acesso à justiça é, também, uma perspectiva metodológica, pela qual são priorizados métodos empíricos e análises comparativas para investigação das experiências de diferentes grupos e indivíduos no sistema de justiça e os impactos sociais da atuação de seus agentes e instituições. Para verificação das hipóteses propostas, foi realizado, além da pesquisa teórica, um estudo empírico-jurisprudencial sobre as teses jurídicas firmadas em sede de julgamento de recurso especial repetitivo e um estudo de caso sobre a discussão, pelo STJ, da conformidade do sistema de scoring de crédito com os preceitos do Código de Defesa do Consumidor. Verificou-se, então, que a sistemática de julgamento da tese jurídica tende a favorecer os litigantes repetitivos, que conseguem influir de forma mais efetiva no procedimento e na formulação de teses favoráveis aos seus interesses. Essa disparidade tornase ainda mais sensível diante do papel decisivo exercido pelas partes dos casos paradigma, que acabam defendendo os interesses dos \"sobrestados\" e dos \"ausentes\" no julgamento da tese jurídica. Nesse sentido, participação direta destes não pode ser de antemão obstada ou substituída pela atuação dos amici curiae, o Ministério Público ou a Defensoria Pública, que não serão necessariamente capazes de fazer frente às vantagens estratégicas dos litigantes repetitivos, tampouco terão interesses alinhados com os litigantes ocasionais. Conclui-se ser fundamental resgatar a perspectiva do acesso à justiça para compreender a litigiosidade repetitiva enquanto realidade social e refletir sobre as diversas questões atinentes à interpretação e aplicação das técnicas de julgamento de casos repetitivos, de modo a se assegurar uma ampla e efetiva participação dos litigantes ocasionais, \"sobrestados\" e \"ausentes\" no julgamento da tese jurídica.Procedural mechanisms specifically aimed at judging repeated cases express a tendency of reforms concerned with legal certainty and efficiency in court administration. In that sense, the Code of Civil Procedure of 2015 provides for the \"Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Demands\" (\"IRDR\") and the \"repeated special and extraordinary appeals\", as mechanisms to consolidate legal theses on repeated legal issues, and to apply such thesis in pending and future cases. Thus, this research discusses the relationship between these procedural mechanisms and the notion of access to justice, raising specific questions about (i) how do repeat players and one-shooters resort to and are affected such mechanisms and (ii) how do other players who will be affected by the legal thesis can participate or have its interests represented in these procedural venues. The hypotheses were that (i) such mechanisms tend to favor a more strategic use by repeat players, and (ii) the interests of parties of pending and futures cases are poorly represented (lack of adequate representation) in the judgment of repeated cases, even with the participation of amicus curiae and the designation of public hearings. As to the definition of \"access to justice\", it can be understood as a social right to participate effectively in the justice system, enabling its use in promoting the social transformations that are needed to overcome persistent inequalities in our society. In addition, access to justice is also a methodological perspective, whereby empirical methods and comparative analysis are prioritized to investigate the experiences of different groups and individuals in the justice system and the social impacts of the actions of their agents and institutions. To verify the hypothesis, besides a theoretical study, an empirical research was carried out to analyze the legal thesis that were consolidated through repeated special appeals, as well as a case study on the discussion by the Superior Court of Justice on the conformity of the credit scoring system with the provisions of consumer law. It was verified, then, that the procedure to trial legal thesis in repeated cases tend to favor repeat players, who are able to exert influence, in a more effective way, in order to obtain the consolidation of legal thesis that favor their interests. This disparity between repeat players and one-shooters becomes even more meaningful in view of the decisive role played by the parties to the leading cases, which end up representing the interests of the parties of pending and futures cases. In this sense, the direct participation of such \"absentees\" cannot be obstructed or replaced by that of the amici curiae, the Public Prosecutor\'s Office or the Public Defender\'s Office, which will not necessarily be able to match the strategic advantages of the repeat players, nor will they have interests in line with those of the one-shooters. Therefore, it is fundamental to redeem the access to justice perspective to understand repeated litigation as a social reality, and to reflect on the various issues related to the interpretation and application of the procedural mechanisms, and thus to ensure a broad and effective participation of litigants and \"absentees\'\" in the judgment of the legal thesis

Acesso `a Justiça e Desastres: As assessorias técnicas independentes e a participação direta das pessoas atingidas em conflitos coletivos complexos

The article examines the role of independent technical advisors as a means of enabling direct participation of victims in disaster cases, in the extrajudicial and judicial arenas. In view of thecurrent procedural system of extraordinary ope legis legal standing, the question is how to ensure the direct, informed and effective participation of affected people in decision-making within the scope of collective actions. Through the study of the case of the rupture of the Fundão dam, in Mariana (MG), or “Caso Rio Doce” and through documentary analysis, the objective was to study how the right of those affected by the disaster to technical guidance was recognized, what was role envisioned andwhat were (and have been) the obstacles encountered. The study describes the role of the class representatives, the design of the model of direct participation in the case and its implementation. It concludes that technical advisors have a specific role, in which technical independence and neutrality are not to be confused. In the analysis of the case, it was seen that the implementation of the advisory model faced great resistance, being, however, possible to verify the importance of this interdisciplinary support for the mobilization and preparation of the affected people to act effectively and informed in the different decision-making arenas. O artigo examina a atuação das assessorias técnicas independentes como um meio de viabilizar a participação direta em casos de desastres, na arena extrajudicial e judicial. Diante do sistema atual de legitimidade extraordinária ope legis, questiona-se como assegurar a participação direta, informada e efetiva de pessoas atingidas na tomada de decisões no âmbito das ações coletivas. Por meio do estudo do caso do rompimento da barragem do Fundão, em Mariana/MG, ou “Caso Rio Doce”, e mediante análise documental, objetivou-se estudar como se deu o reconhecimento do direito dos atingidos à assessoria técnica, qual o seu papel e quais foram (e têm sido) os entraves encontrados para a sua atuação. O estudo descreve a atuação dos legitimados extraordinários, a construção do modelo de participação direta no caso e a sua implementação. Conclui que as assessorias técnicas possuem um papel específico, no qual independência técnica e neutralidade não se confundem. Na análise do caso, viu-se que a implementação do modelo das assessorias enfrentou grandes resistências, sendo, contudo, possível constatar a importância desse apoio interdisciplinar para mobilização e preparação das pessoas atingidas para atuar de forma efetiva e informada nos diversos espaços decisórios