Post by xyz3600 on Feb 25, 2024 0:44:52 GMT -6
The device, therefore, authorizes the bodies of the Judiciary to enter into procedural legal transactions with the Attorney General's Office of the National Treasury, in accordance with article 190 of the CPC/2015, to carry out joint efforts or change the procedure. In addition to other worrying issues that were included in the provisional measure, this one, in particular, causes some concern, especially if one considers that the judge (and this includes all bodies of the Judiciary), despite participating as a subject of some typical procedural transactions, such as shared sanitation (according to article 357, paragraph 3) and the conclusion of a procedural calendar (according to article 191), are not subject to atypical procedural legal transactions , concluded based on the general negotiation clause inserted in article 190 of the CPC/2015, expressly mentioned in the aforementioned paragraph 8.
In principle, it is a literal interpretation of article 190 itself, whose caput expressly provides that the parties may enter into procedural transactions if certain requirements are met and whose sole paragraph establishes that the judge's actions are restricted to the control of validity in relatively restricted hypotheses. . Article 200, caput , of the CPC, in fact, establishes that the acts of the parties (including procedural transactions) take Middle East Mobile Number List effect immediately, conditioning only the effectiveness of the withdrawal (which is not even a procedural transaction, despite being a procedural act ) to judicial approval, under the terms of the sole paragraph. The judge can, from what is extracted from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relevant to the matter, as follows: (i) participate in some typical procedural transactions as a subject; (ii) control the validity of the procedural transaction in certain situations (article 190, sole paragraph, of the CPC/2015); and (iii) only apply the content of the procedural agreement concluded by the parties.
It is true that the judge must modify the procedure, adapting it to the needs of the conflict in order to give greater effectiveness to the protection of the law (article 139, VI, of the CPC/), and it is also true that his participation in Typical procedural transactions tend to enable more adequate jurisdictional provision. However, the authorization for the Judiciary and the National Treasury to enter into procedural transactions based on article 190 of the CPC/2015 seems reckless, even though the Judiciary is not the subject of procedural conventions. And more: in addition to enabling the conclusion of atypical procedural transactions by the Judiciary, article 19, paragraph 8, of Law as worded by the MP, excludes from negotiation the party that litigates with the Public Treasury, which distorts completely the purpose of the institute, which is to make the process and procedure more suitable for each case, according to its specificities.
In principle, it is a literal interpretation of article 190 itself, whose caput expressly provides that the parties may enter into procedural transactions if certain requirements are met and whose sole paragraph establishes that the judge's actions are restricted to the control of validity in relatively restricted hypotheses. . Article 200, caput , of the CPC, in fact, establishes that the acts of the parties (including procedural transactions) take Middle East Mobile Number List effect immediately, conditioning only the effectiveness of the withdrawal (which is not even a procedural transaction, despite being a procedural act ) to judicial approval, under the terms of the sole paragraph. The judge can, from what is extracted from the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure relevant to the matter, as follows: (i) participate in some typical procedural transactions as a subject; (ii) control the validity of the procedural transaction in certain situations (article 190, sole paragraph, of the CPC/2015); and (iii) only apply the content of the procedural agreement concluded by the parties.
It is true that the judge must modify the procedure, adapting it to the needs of the conflict in order to give greater effectiveness to the protection of the law (article 139, VI, of the CPC/), and it is also true that his participation in Typical procedural transactions tend to enable more adequate jurisdictional provision. However, the authorization for the Judiciary and the National Treasury to enter into procedural transactions based on article 190 of the CPC/2015 seems reckless, even though the Judiciary is not the subject of procedural conventions. And more: in addition to enabling the conclusion of atypical procedural transactions by the Judiciary, article 19, paragraph 8, of Law as worded by the MP, excludes from negotiation the party that litigates with the Public Treasury, which distorts completely the purpose of the institute, which is to make the process and procedure more suitable for each case, according to its specificities.