PROCEDURAL CONVENTIONS AND THE LIMITATIONS OF THE AUTONOMY OF THE PARTIES: PERCEPTION OF THE TJDFT JUDGES ABOUT THE CONVENTIONS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2022.56882

Keywords:

Procedural Conventions, limitations, parties free will, judicial control, TJDFT

Abstract

The atypical procedural conventions were important step towards democratic constitutional proceduralism. Despite this, when looking for evidence of the practical use of this institute, this article conducted interviews with judges of the TJDFT to verify their perception about the frequency of use of atypical procedural conventions and about the possible limitations that may be imposed on the autonomy of the parties' will. In the end, the lack of unanimity in the answers may show that the limits presented by the academia are not easily transposed to practical situations, which creates difficulties in the use of the procedural conventions.

Author Biographies

Daniela Marques de Moraes, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF

Doutora em Direito pela Universidade de Brasília (UnB). Realizou pesquisa pós-doutoral na Universidade Carlos III de Madrid (UCM3). Brasília/DF. Professora Adjunta da Faculdade de Direito da Universidade de Brasília com atuação na Graduação e no Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito (Mestrado e Doutorado). Líder e Pesquisadora do Grupo de Pesquisa CNPq/UnB Processo Civil, Acesso à Justiça e Tutela dos Direitos.

Matheus de Souza Depieri, Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF

Graduando em Direito pela Universidade de Brasília (UnB). Brasília/DF. Editor-chefe da Revista dos Estudantes de Direito da UnB (RED|UnB), Associate Editor da International Review of Constitutional Reform e pesquisador do Grupo de Pesquisa CNPq/UnB Processo Civil, Acesso à Justiça e Tutela dos Direitos.

Published

2021-12-31

How to Cite

Moraes, D. M. de, & Depieri, M. de S. (2021). PROCEDURAL CONVENTIONS AND THE LIMITATIONS OF THE AUTONOMY OF THE PARTIES: PERCEPTION OF THE TJDFT JUDGES ABOUT THE CONVENTIONS. Revista Eletrônica De Direito Processual, 23(1). https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2022.56882