Name: GIOVANA APARECIDA FAZIO ZANETTI
Publication date: 01/07/2019
Examining board:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| ALCEU MAURÍCIO JUNIOR | External Examiner * |
| TRÍCIA NAVARRO XAVIER CABRAL | Internal Examiner * |
Summary: There is no point in a country that has laws in its legal order in a reasonable amount
if there are no mechanisms that guarantee its application and effectiveness. The
Judiciary should not be seen as the natural way of solving demands, rather, other
methods of resolution and conflict, self-composition and heterocompositions, such as
mediation, conciliation and arbitration, are considered as a healthy tendency for
greater efficiency of distribution of justice. The main purpose of this study is to
present a legal analysis on the possibility of self-composition in cases involving the
Public Treasury, and its necessary compatibility between the procedural regime and
the legal-administrative regime, removing any doubts about the possibility of the
Public Treasury using methods consensual agreements for the solution of conflicts to
which it is part, since not every right defended by the Public Administration is
unavailable, and even if it is, it is accepted that related solutions are compromised.
The first chapter presents access to justice through a Multiport Court. This topic
includes access to the Judiciary in return for access to a just legal order and forms of
heterocomposition and self-composition that demonstrate that the sentence is only
one of the appropriate methods contemplated by our order to resolve conflicts. In the
second chapter, the issue of self-composition and the slowness of justice is
developed, and the problem of this delays as a result of the litigiousness of the
procedural parties, as well as the influence of the contradictory in restraining this
litigiousness. Still on this topic is the confrontation of the peculiar situation of the
Public Treasury, the influence of the precedents in the contention of the litigiousness
and the self-composition as antidote to the slowness of justice. Cooperation and
good faith, principles enshrined in the new procedural law versus autonomy of the
will, are also part of the debate. In the third chapter, the self-composition involving
the Public Treasury is analyzed on the autonomy of the will approach in
contradistinction to the principles of administrative law of the supremacy of the public
interest over the private, legality and unavailability of the public interest that is not
affected when the Administration Recognizes and enforces the rights of others. In
this chapter, we present the deliberation of self-determination as a legal decision and
the limiting factors for the composition of the litigation and transaction by the Public
Treasury. In the fourth and last chapter there is the confrontation of the necessary
compatibility between the procedural regime and the legal-administrative regime. It
demystifies the idea that the Public Treasury enters into agreements based on the
autonomy of the will, ending with the compulsory attendance at the Conciliation
Hearing provided for in art. 334 of CPC / 2015, demonstrating in this subitem the
peculiar situation of the Public Treasury.
Key-words: Autocomposition. Court Multiportas. Appropriate methods of conflict
resolution. Public farm. Procedural regime versus Administrative legal regime.
