Submitted by Nadir Basilio (nadirsb@uninove.br) on 2016-05-12T18:55:33Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Mauricio Gabriele.pdf: 1281603 bytes, checksum: 3c8170f77773637b426fe466cc74c7c7 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-05-12T18:55:33Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Mauricio Gabriele.pdf: 1281603 bytes, checksum: 3c8170f77773637b426fe466cc74c7c7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-12-18 / The present study aims at analyzing the relation involving the judiciary crisis, the access to justice and the notarial protest, proposing a careful thought on each of these issues. At first, it analyses the judiciary crisis rationalizing the fact that this crisis is beyond the judiciary powers, and that it is already involving the State and the society as well, thus one may affirm that the judiciary on its own will not be able to find a solution. Hence, there is the need to search other means to do deal with this issue and especially alternative means for solving conflicts. Secondly, it analyses the crisis of reaching justice, originated by the judiciary crisis itself, it is proposed a re-interpretation of the institute aiming at clarifying the difference between access to justice and access to the judiciary system, taking into consideration the existing alternative means to solve conflicts. At last, it analyses the characteristics and the operation of notarial protest, in order to verify its capacity, as an alternative mean of solving conflicts, thus helping the judiciary system as well as easing the access to justice. In the very end, it presents statistics and data concerning notarial protest in Brazil. It confirms the first hypothesis of this work, which affirms that the protest itself is a great tool in solving conflicts, and one of the consequences of its daily use is the easing of a clogged judiciary system. Combining these thoughts, it is likely to conclude that notarial protest is an effective alternative and sui generis mean of conflict solving. The present study is based on qualitative and quantitative data as well as on previous studies over the subject matter, culminating at its conclusion by an inductive research approach. / O presente estudo tem por objetivo analisar a relação que pode ser legitimamente estabelecida entre a crise do Judiciário, o acesso à justiça e o protesto notarial, propondo uma reflexão sobre cada um desses três objetos. Primeiramente, analisa-se a crise do Judiciário ponderando que esta transcendeu os limites deste Poder, envolvendo todo o Estado e a Sociedade; assim, considera-se que o Judiciário, por si só, não poderá sanear sua crise devendo-se buscar subsídios em outros seguimentos, dos quais se destacam os meios alternativos para solução de conflitos. Em seguida, analisa-se a crise de acesso à justiça, motivada pela própria crise do Judiciário, e procura-se uma releitura deste instituto a fim de diferenciar o acesso à justiça do acesso ao Judiciário, que, muitas vezes, pode ser propiciado por meios alternativos de solução de conflito. Foram analisadas as características e operacionalidade do protesto notarial, com o propósito de verificar seu potencial enquanto meio alternativo de solução e pacificação de conflitos, socorrendo, assim o Judiciário e o acesso à justiça, e promovendo a desjudicialização de litígios. Por fim, apresenta estatísticas da experiência de protesto no Brasil, as quais confirmam a hipótese deste trabalho, em dizer, ao final que, constitui-se o protesto em importante ferramenta para a solução de conflitos e, por consequência, para desafogar (e agilizar) o Judiciário, perfazendo-se como um método alternativo sui generis de solução de conflitos. O presente trabalho serviu-se de pesquisa bibliográfica e empírica, com estatísticas, utilizando-se do método indutivo.

Desde o ano de 2010, com a aprovação da Resolução n. 125 pelo Conselho Nacional de Justiça, os poderes públicos, em especial o Poder Judiciário, vêm incentivando o desenvolvimento de política pública, de âmbito nacional, para o tratamento adequado dos conflitos. Central para essa política é o incentivo aos mecanismos consensuais de solução de conflitos, da mediação e da conciliação, cuja implementação no mundo jurídico seria essencial para a transformação da mentalidade dos operadores do Direito e a superação da cultura da sentença pela cultura da pacificação. O presente trabalho investiga como vem ocorrendo a implementação dessa política pública, em especial quanto à transformação da mentalidade litigante dos operadores do Direito. Investiga-se se e como a Resolução n. 125 do Conselho Nacional de Justiça impacta e influencia a formação jurídica, o ensino do Direito, em especial do Direito Processual. Para tanto, parte-se da hipótese de que o desenvolvimento a contento da política pública de tratamento adequado dos conflitos, com a transformação da mentalidade dos operadores do Direito, não pode carecer de uma reestruturação mais ampla e mais profunda do ensino do Direito Processual. Após realização de pesquisa empírica com Faculdades de Direito conveniadas com o Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo para a instalação de centros de mediação, conclui-se que a transformação cultural está longe de se verificar, voltados os convênios mais ao desafogamento do Judiciário do que a um aprendizado renovado dos estudantes de Direito. Sem a mudança do ensino jurídico, pouco será possível mudar na cultura da sentença. / Since 2010, with the adoption of Resolution n. 125 by the brazilian Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ), public authorities, particularly within the Judiciary, have been encouraging the development of a public policy, nationwide, for the proper dispute processing. Capital to this policy is the incentive for the use of consensual dispute resolution processes, like mediation and conciliation, and these measures would be essential to the chance of the way lawyers act and think, when dealing with disputes. This research investigates how this policy is being enforced, particularly aimed at the transformation of the adversarial thinking of lawyers. It investigates if and how the Resolution n. 125 of the brazilian Conselho Nacional de Justiça impacts the legal education, particularly Civil Procedure. The initial hypothesis, for the public policy for proper dispute processing to actually change the thinking of lawyers, is that it is due a more deep transformation of Civil Procedure education. By a empirical research of the treaties among Law Schools and the São Paulo State Court for the setting of mediation centers, it is concluded that the legal cultures transformation is far from being. These treaties mean highly an answer for the crisis of the Judiciary, than a renewal of the law education. Unless the law education changes, the adversarial culture will not be overcome.

Direito processual civil, Mediação e conciliação, Reforma judiciária / The proliferation of individual claims repeating factual and/or legal matters have inspired procedural reforms aimed at the standardization of judgments, the consolidation of precedents and the collectivization of individual claims and searching for effectiveness and legal certainty. Another important response to this repeated litigation is the promotion of consensual dispute resolution, especially conciliation and mediation in the courts. This research investigates how consensual mechanisms are used by courts to deal with repeated litigation and which are the practices and techniques specifically aimed at repeated disputes. The characteristic elements of these repeated disputes are the similarity of the factual and/or legal arguments, the representativeness of the volume of claims and the fact that one of the parties litigates in similar disputes more often, while the other in involved in such type of cases only occasionally. These repeat players are known as the great litigants of the Judiciary, and enjoy certain advantages in terms of bargaining power, resources and information in view of their size and the frequency with which they are involved with similar cases. An empirical research was carried out court programs in Brazil and the United States to study the perceptions of the actors involved in the design and operation these programas on the issues raised. It was found that repeated litigation is a crucial part of court conciliation and mediation programs, influencing the role of the main stakeholders (parties, lawyers and conciliators/mediators), screening and case management practices, access conditions, specific techniques and the role played the Judiciary, who shall also act as manager, designer and institutional mediator. It is concluded that the structure of these programs and the role of those involved can be key factors for an adequate treatment of repeated disputes in the judicial context.

Direito processual civil, Mediação e conciliação, Reforma judiciária / The proliferation of individual claims repeating factual and/or legal matters have inspired procedural reforms aimed at the standardization of judgments, the consolidation of precedents and the collectivization of individual claims and searching for effectiveness and legal certainty. Another important response to this repeated litigation is the promotion of consensual dispute resolution, especially conciliation and mediation in the courts. This research investigates how consensual mechanisms are used by courts to deal with repeated litigation and which are the practices and techniques specifically aimed at repeated disputes. The characteristic elements of these repeated disputes are the similarity of the factual and/or legal arguments, the representativeness of the volume of claims and the fact that one of the parties litigates in similar disputes more often, while the other in involved in such type of cases only occasionally. These repeat players are known as the great litigants of the Judiciary, and enjoy certain advantages in terms of bargaining power, resources and information in view of their size and the frequency with which they are involved with similar cases. An empirical research was carried out court programs in Brazil and the United States to study the perceptions of the actors involved in the design and operation these programas on the issues raised. It was found that repeated litigation is a crucial part of court conciliation and mediation programs, influencing the role of the main stakeholders (parties, lawyers and conciliators/mediators), screening and case management practices, access conditions, specific techniques and the role played the Judiciary, who shall also act as manager, designer and institutional mediator. It is concluded that the structure of these programs and the role of those involved can be key factors for an adequate treatment of repeated disputes in the judicial context.

Desde o ano de 2010, com a aprovação da Resolução n. 125 pelo Conselho Nacional de Justiça, os poderes públicos, em especial o Poder Judiciário, vêm incentivando o desenvolvimento de política pública, de âmbito nacional, para o tratamento adequado dos conflitos. Central para essa política é o incentivo aos mecanismos consensuais de solução de conflitos, da mediação e da conciliação, cuja implementação no mundo jurídico seria essencial para a transformação da mentalidade dos operadores do Direito e a superação da cultura da sentença pela cultura da pacificação. O presente trabalho investiga como vem ocorrendo a implementação dessa política pública, em especial quanto à transformação da mentalidade litigante dos operadores do Direito. Investiga-se se e como a Resolução n. 125 do Conselho Nacional de Justiça impacta e influencia a formação jurídica, o ensino do Direito, em especial do Direito Processual. Para tanto, parte-se da hipótese de que o desenvolvimento a contento da política pública de tratamento adequado dos conflitos, com a transformação da mentalidade dos operadores do Direito, não pode carecer de uma reestruturação mais ampla e mais profunda do ensino do Direito Processual. Após realização de pesquisa empírica com Faculdades de Direito conveniadas com o Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de São Paulo para a instalação de centros de mediação, conclui-se que a transformação cultural está longe de se verificar, voltados os convênios mais ao desafogamento do Judiciário do que a um aprendizado renovado dos estudantes de Direito. Sem a mudança do ensino jurídico, pouco será possível mudar na cultura da sentença. / Since 2010, with the adoption of Resolution n. 125 by the brazilian Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ), public authorities, particularly within the Judiciary, have been encouraging the development of a public policy, nationwide, for the proper dispute processing. Capital to this policy is the incentive for the use of consensual dispute resolution processes, like mediation and conciliation, and these measures would be essential to the chance of the way lawyers act and think, when dealing with disputes. This research investigates how this policy is being enforced, particularly aimed at the transformation of the adversarial thinking of lawyers. It investigates if and how the Resolution n. 125 of the brazilian Conselho Nacional de Justiça impacts the legal education, particularly Civil Procedure. The initial hypothesis, for the public policy for proper dispute processing to actually change the thinking of lawyers, is that it is due a more deep transformation of Civil Procedure education. By a empirical research of the treaties among Law Schools and the São Paulo State Court for the setting of mediation centers, it is concluded that the legal cultures transformation is far from being. These treaties mean highly an answer for the crisis of the Judiciary, than a renewal of the law education. Unless the law education changes, the adversarial culture will not be overcome.