Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

View all

New Code of Civil Procedure: the judiciary as a pressure group on the legislative process.

In 2015, a new Civil Procedure Code was approved by the National Congress. In the
same year, projects aimed at modifying such code were presented, even before it
began, in points highly criticized by the national magistracy. The subsequent
approval of these changes was accompanied by news reports on the participation of
associations of judges and official bodies, such as the Federal Supreme Court and
the Superior Court of Justice. Since then, starting from the premise that these groups
were acting in the attempt to put pressure on the legislative process, a research was
conducted, in order to, besides confirming this hypothesis, to find out the means and
the arguments pressure. Throughout the research, materials were found that
confirmed the dispatch of letters, participation in public hearings, meetings and trips
to the National Congress by representatives of associations and members of the
Courts already mentioned. On the other hand, the survey pointed to indications that,
even among magistrates ‘and courts’ associations, there were sometimes
divergences of interests, and there was no unanimous positioning of the category, as
initially suggested. In any case, the role of such groups on the legislative process
remained clear, with technical information and data collection as their “main
weapons”. Moreover, it was also evidenced that, due to a probable deficit in
pressure, not all points criticized in general by the magistracy in the new codification
ended up being the object of attempts at modifications, a situation that was, in
practice, “mocked” by when judges apply the law.

Author: Matheus Martins Lacerda
Source: https://guaiaca.ufpel.edu.br/handle/prefix/5275

Representatives, Represented, and Social Media: Mapping the Informational Scheduling Mechanism
August 25, 2017
Action repertoire of the Deaf Movement in Brazil: campaign for the official recognition of the Brazilian Sign Language
February 26, 2018