A participação de terceiros no microssistema de julgamento de casos repetitivos no processo civil

Abstract

This dissertation aimed to analyze the participation of third parties in the microsystem of judgment of repetitive cases in civil proceedings. To this end, the importance of treating the institutes provided for in art. 928 of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure — incident of resolution of repetitive demands and repetitive extraordinary and special appeals — as members of a microsystem was outlined, since they serve, at the same time, to manage cases that present repetitive legal issues and to form a binding precedent, which is why they require their own procedural regime, with specific dogma, observing unity and coherence in the application of the institutes, guided by the same logic of interpretation. The balance between fundamental rights in the judgment of repetitive cases was highlighted, weighing, on the one hand, equality, legal certainty and procedural speed, and, on the other hand, a special procedure capable of guaranteeing a subjectively expanded adversarial system, capable of bringing together all the issues relevant to the formation of the binding decision-making standard. Regarding the participation of third parties in the microsystem for judging repetitive cases, it was highlighted that such participation is based on the understanding of the guarantee of adversarial proceedings as a right of influence, highlighting as criteria for intervention the argumentative contribution to the debate, representativeness and the degree of interest in the controversy. The choice of pilot cases was highlighted as a sensitive point in the microsystem, which should have as parameters the breadth of the adversarial proceedings and the representativeness of the subjects of the paradigm processes. As instruments for mitigating the participatory deficit, the disclosure and publicity of incidents of repetitive cases, the participation of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the intervention of amicus curiae and the holding of public hearings were highlighted. Finally, it was established that the observance of the mechanisms for expanding the debate, specific to the microsystem for judging repetitive cases, set out in the Code of Civil Procedure, must be understood as a power-duty of the judging body, so that any restriction on the participation of third parties must be exceptional and duly justified, an interpretation that is consistent with the fundamentality of the right to adversarial proceedings and ensures qualified participation in the procedure.