A conciliação judicial de conflitos previdenciários envolve, em geral, uma proposta de acordo baseada na renúncia pelo indivíduo de parte dos valores do benefício em atraso em um processo no qual a decisão contrária ao entendimento do Instituto Nacional do Segurado Social (INSS) é muito provável. Como regra, há um notório desequilíbrio de poder envolvendo, de um lado, um litigante ocasional (indivíduo) e, de outro, um litigante habitual (INSS). O presente trabalho pretende discutir qual o papel do terceiro facilitador nesse contexto, de modo a legitimar a prática existente e avançar para uma mudança de paradigma. Para tanto, parte-se da tese de que a conciliação deve ser adequada ao conflito que se pretende tratar, cabendo ao terceiro facilitador atuar de acordo com as peculiaridades desse conflito. Desse modo, propõe-se que, para o tratamento do conflito previdenciário, o conceito de conciliador deve ser entendido em termos amplos, abrangendo não apenas o conciliador leigo, mas também o juiz conciliador e o Judiciário como conciliador interinstitucional. Embora cada uma dessas atuações possua características próprias, sustenta-se que o ponto em comum é o respeito a um devido processo legal mínimo que possibilite a existência de uma base adequada de poder e que permita, assim, a tomada de uma decisão informada pelas partes. Dessa forma, a flexibilidade instrumental própria da conciliação não impediria o estabelecimento de parâmetros mínimos da atuação do conciliador. Por isso, tendo como limite a tomada de uma decisão informada, o conciliador atuaria por meio de estratégias variadas, aproximando-se e distanciando-se das partes, com maior ou menor interferência, de acordo com as características do caso apresentado. Conclui-se que, com a atuação conjunta e coordenada das diversas espécies de conciliador é possível aprimorar qualitativamente a conciliação de conflitos previdenciários. / The court-connected conciliation (or evaluative mediation) of pension funds conflicts in Brazil involves, generally, an agreement in which the individual plaintiff waives part of a benefit in a lawsuit that the defendant, a national government agency called Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social (INSS), will probably loose. As a general rule, there is a significant imbalance of power between a one-shotter (individual) and a repeat player (INSS). The present work aims to discuss the role of the conciliator (or evaluative mediator) in this scenario, in order to legitimate the current practice and to allow a paradigm shift. Firstly, it argues that conciliation should be appropriate to the conflict to be resolved and that the conciliator also should act according to the peculiarities of this conflict. Therefore, it proposed that the definition of conciliator might be enlarged to cover not only the lay person who acts as a conciliator, but also the judge as a conciliator and the Judiciary as an interinstitutional conciliator. Although each specie has its own characteristics, it is argued that the common point is that all must try to guarantee the observance of a minimal due process of law which allows the existence of an adequate basis of power and thus enable parties to make an informed decision. Consequently, the flexibility of the conciliation rules would not prevent the establishment of minimum standards of the conciliator\'s performance. Limited by the aim to allow parties to make an informed decision, the conciliator would act through a variety of strategies. It means being close or far from the parties, interfering in a greater or a smaller level, depending on the characteristics of a particular conflict to be dealt. To sum up, this work concludes that, if the three species of conciliator work together in a coordinated way, it could be possible to have a qualitative improvement in the conciliation of pension funds conflicts.

A conciliação judicial de conflitos previdenciários envolve, em geral, uma proposta de acordo baseada na renúncia pelo indivíduo de parte dos valores do benefício em atraso em um processo no qual a decisão contrária ao entendimento do Instituto Nacional do Segurado Social (INSS) é muito provável. Como regra, há um notório desequilíbrio de poder envolvendo, de um lado, um litigante ocasional (indivíduo) e, de outro, um litigante habitual (INSS). O presente trabalho pretende discutir qual o papel do terceiro facilitador nesse contexto, de modo a legitimar a prática existente e avançar para uma mudança de paradigma. Para tanto, parte-se da tese de que a conciliação deve ser adequada ao conflito que se pretende tratar, cabendo ao terceiro facilitador atuar de acordo com as peculiaridades desse conflito. Desse modo, propõe-se que, para o tratamento do conflito previdenciário, o conceito de conciliador deve ser entendido em termos amplos, abrangendo não apenas o conciliador leigo, mas também o juiz conciliador e o Judiciário como conciliador interinstitucional. Embora cada uma dessas atuações possua características próprias, sustenta-se que o ponto em comum é o respeito a um devido processo legal mínimo que possibilite a existência de uma base adequada de poder e que permita, assim, a tomada de uma decisão informada pelas partes. Dessa forma, a flexibilidade instrumental própria da conciliação não impediria o estabelecimento de parâmetros mínimos da atuação do conciliador. Por isso, tendo como limite a tomada de uma decisão informada, o conciliador atuaria por meio de estratégias variadas, aproximando-se e distanciando-se das partes, com maior ou menor interferência, de acordo com as características do caso apresentado. Conclui-se que, com a atuação conjunta e coordenada das diversas espécies de conciliador é possível aprimorar qualitativamente a conciliação de conflitos previdenciários. / The court-connected conciliation (or evaluative mediation) of pension funds conflicts in Brazil involves, generally, an agreement in which the individual plaintiff waives part of a benefit in a lawsuit that the defendant, a national government agency called Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social (INSS), will probably loose. As a general rule, there is a significant imbalance of power between a one-shotter (individual) and a repeat player (INSS). The present work aims to discuss the role of the conciliator (or evaluative mediator) in this scenario, in order to legitimate the current practice and to allow a paradigm shift. Firstly, it argues that conciliation should be appropriate to the conflict to be resolved and that the conciliator also should act according to the peculiarities of this conflict. Therefore, it proposed that the definition of conciliator might be enlarged to cover not only the lay person who acts as a conciliator, but also the judge as a conciliator and the Judiciary as an interinstitutional conciliator. Although each specie has its own characteristics, it is argued that the common point is that all must try to guarantee the observance of a minimal due process of law which allows the existence of an adequate basis of power and thus enable parties to make an informed decision. Consequently, the flexibility of the conciliation rules would not prevent the establishment of minimum standards of the conciliator\'s performance. Limited by the aim to allow parties to make an informed decision, the conciliator would act through a variety of strategies. It means being close or far from the parties, interfering in a greater or a smaller level, depending on the characteristics of a particular conflict to be dealt. To sum up, this work concludes that, if the three species of conciliator work together in a coordinated way, it could be possible to have a qualitative improvement in the conciliation of pension funds conflicts.

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.