THE DOCTRINAL DIVERGENCES ON THE LIMITS OF ATYPICAL PROCEDURAL LEGAL NEGOTIATION AND THE POSITION OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2025.82114Abstract
ABSTRACT: One of the great debates related to procedural legal deals concerns the limits of such negotiations. The discussion intensified with the enactment of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, which, in its article 190, instituted a general clause on procedural legal negotiations that allows the parties to adjust the procedure as well as to dispose of their powers, burdens, duties and procedural faculties. While one school of thought argues that article 190 of the CPC implies a return to procedural privatism, giving the parties ample scope to carry out procedural negotiations, another maintains that the freedom to negotiate has not removed the publicist nature of the process. Given this scenario, the aim of this research is to analyze the doctrinal differences on the limits of procedural legal negotiation and the position of the Superior Court of Justice on the subject. As a methodological option, the deductive method is adopted, with a literature review and a jurisprudential interpretation of the Superior Court of Justice. The study begins with an analysis of procedural legal transactions, exploring aspects such as their definition, their legal provision, and the inclusion of the general procedural negotiation clause in the CPC/15. In addition, the chapter presents different perspectives on the subject through a critical analysis that confronts the two doctrinal currents. Also in this chapter, the powers of the judge in relation to procedural legal deals are studied, highlighting the limitations imposed by public order rules and fundamental rights. The next chapter presents the position of the Superior Court of Justice, which understands that procedural negotiation has its limits in the activity of the judge and cannot suppress fundamental constitutional guarantees or hinder the exercise of judicial activity. Through the judgments handed down by the court, it is possible to conclude that it considers that such negotiations must be exercised within the limits established by the legal system and cannot be used to violate or suppress fundamental rights and mandatory rules or interfere with the powers of the judge.
KEYWORDS: General procedural clause. Privatism and procedural publicism. Limits to the autonomy of will. Powers of the magistrate. Jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rosalina Moitta Pinto da Costa, Gerfison Soares Silva
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Todos os artigos publicados na Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual (REDP) (Departamento de Direito Processual, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil) são licenciados por meio de uma Licença Creative Commons - Atribuição 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0).
Os autores retêm os direitos autorais de seu artigo e concordam em licenciar seu trabalho com a licença CC BY 4.0, aceitando assim os termos e condições específicos desta licença disponíveis no seguinte website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
- Os autores concedem à REDP o direito de primeira publicação, de se identificar como publicadora original do trabalho e concedem à revista uma licença de direitos não exclusivos para utilizar o trabalho das seguintes formas: Reproduzir, vender e distribuir cópias eletrônicas ou impressas do manuscrito como um todo, de partes específicas do manuscrito e de suas traduções para qualquer idioma;
- O uso do artigo por terceiros é livre, contanto que a integridade da publicação seja mantida e seus autores originais, periódico de primeira publicação e detalhes de citação sejam identificados.
Dentro dos termos da licença, os autores podem entrar em acordos contratuais adicionais separados para a distribuição não exclusiva da versão publicada do trabalho na revista.
Copyright and Licensing
All articles published in the Procedural Law Electronic Review (REDP) (Department of Procedural Law, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
- Authors retain copyright to their article and agree to license their work under the CC BY 4.0 license, thereby accepting the specific terms and conditions of this license available at the following website: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ legal code.
- Authors grant REDP the right of first publication, to identify itself as the original publisher of the work, and grant the journal a non-exclusive license to use the work in the following ways: Reproduce, sell and distribute electronic or printed copies of the manuscript as a whole, of specific parts of the manuscript and its translations into any language;
- Use of the article by third parties is free, as long as the integrity of the publication is maintained and its original authors, first publication journal, and citation details are identified.
Within the terms of the license, authors may enter into separate additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work in the journal.
