Ações judiciais em trâmite no Supremo Tribunal Federal (ADI 6310; ADI 6293 e MS 36875) decorrentes da resolução n. 305/2019 do Conselho Nacional de Justiça.

• Autor(a) principal: Blazius, Caio Gouveia
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Tipo de documento: Trabalho de conclusão de curso
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Repositório Universitário da Ânima (RUNA)
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.animaeducacao.com.br/handle/ANIMA/15457
• topic: Controle de Constitucionalidade; Magistrado; Direitos Fundamentais; Conselho Nacional de Justiça; Redes Sociais

The present monographic work had, as its general objective, the analysis of Resolution no 305/2019 of the National Council of Justice, which aims to make the exercise of freedom of expression compatible with the duties inherent to the position, by establishing the parameters that must be adopted by judges on social networks, and their consulars at the Supreme Federal Court, the Direct Action of Unconstitutionality no 6310, brought by the Association of Federal Judges of Brazil (AJUFE); the Direct Unconstitutionality Action no 6293, brought by the Association of Brazilian Magistrates (AMB); and injunction no 36875, filed by the National Association of Labor Justice Magistrates (ANAMATRA). To this end, a bibliographic and documentary study was carried out, characterized as a qualitative and descriptive research, using as primary sources the current legislation, jurisprudence and doctrinal and constitutional foundations. In addition to the full analysis of Resolution no 305/2019 and its consulars in the STF, for a better understanding and contextualization, the National Council of Justice was analyzed, addressing its origin, reasons for creation and normative forecast, as well as its composition and attributions, contextualizing with its role before society. Through the research, it was possible to observe the confluence of fundamentals in the three actions. In general, their arguments revolve around two main points, the unconstitutionality of Articles 3o and 4o, item II, of the Resolution. Finally, it is important to highlight that, to date, none of the actions analyzed, with the exception of the writ of mandamus no 36875, have been judged.