Mediação e conciliação judiciais pelas serventias extrajudiciais

Abstract

The research addresses the possibility of extrajudicial offices promoting mandatory conciliation and mediation hearings provided for in article 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in order to promote adequate conflict management, enabling the implementation of the principle of access to justice. This is a current and relevant topic given the crisis in the administration of justice that is plaguing the country and that makes it impossible to implement the fundamental human right to access to justice and, consequently, other rights arising from it. The research revolves around the issue of the National Policy for Adequate Conflict Treatment, established by Resolution nº. 125/2010 of the National Council of Justice, and the provisions of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure that expanded and introduced self-compositional conflict resolution measures, among which is the mandatory conciliation and mediation hearing provided for in Article 334 of the procedural statute, to be held by the Cejusc, by judicial conciliators and mediators and, in the absence of these, by the Judge of the case. The hypothetical-deductive method aims to achieve the following objectives: to present the concept of justice in order to address what coexistential justice is and to identify the principle of access to justice and its new guise in light of the current crisis of inefficiency of the Judiciary; to analyze the National Judicial Policy for the adequate treatment of conflicts, established by Resolution nº 125/2010 of the National Council of Justice, and the self-composing methods of resolution chosen by the policy: conciliation and mediation; to criticize the National Judicial Policy in order to present the potential of extrajudicial offices in the context of the multi-door system, and, in particular, to hold the hearings provided for in Article 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The conclusion is that the National Judicial Policy for Adequate Treatment of Conflicts is flawed, and there is no effective dejudicialization, especially with regard to the judicial conciliation and mediation hearings provided for in Article 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since due to the insufficient number of CEJUSCS, these hearings end up being held by the Judges themselves, generating a breach of confidentiality and potential harm to the intended agreement. The solution proposed in this research is to allow these hearings to be held by extrajudicial offices, thus guaranteeing the principle of confidentiality and promoting effective, timely and adequate access to justice