CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Franco, Ivan Candido da Silva de
Data de Publicação: 2015
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito
Texto Completo: https://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/61
Resumo: The National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça - CNJ), created in 2004, is the administrative governing body of the Brazilian Judicial Branch (Article 103- B of the Constitution). It has the responsibility of editing rules that all the Brazilian courts must follow, except the Supreme Court (STF), and of exercising disciplinary control of judges. This article is a case study that explores a specific aspect of the CNJ’s mandate: the regulation of the disciplinary control of the judiciary. Our main goal is to understand the existing institutional dynamics and to understand how this issue was undertaken throughout the Council’s history: what kind of resistance was encountered in this process and which actors were involved in the ongoing debates. The institutional path, which begins with a fragile regulation from the CNJ’s Internal Regiment, and then gives rise to the first resolution of disciplinary matters, is described and analyzed.  Ultimately, this path results in the current regulation, the Resolution 135/2011, which promotes significant changes in the disciplinary rules and, because of that a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade -ADI) challenged it before the Brazilian Supreme Court.
id RPED-1_96f8c640c45984de8cd7ad7f915d893d
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/61
network_acronym_str RPED-1
network_name_str Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito
repository_id_str
spelling CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciaryA resolução 135/CNJ e o desafio da regulamentação da magistraturaregulamentaçãocontrole disciplinarmagistraturaConselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ)Resolução 135/2011regulationdisciplinary controljudiciaryNational Council of Justice (CNJ)Resolution 135/2011The National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça - CNJ), created in 2004, is the administrative governing body of the Brazilian Judicial Branch (Article 103- B of the Constitution). It has the responsibility of editing rules that all the Brazilian courts must follow, except the Supreme Court (STF), and of exercising disciplinary control of judges. This article is a case study that explores a specific aspect of the CNJ’s mandate: the regulation of the disciplinary control of the judiciary. Our main goal is to understand the existing institutional dynamics and to understand how this issue was undertaken throughout the Council’s history: what kind of resistance was encountered in this process and which actors were involved in the ongoing debates. The institutional path, which begins with a fragile regulation from the CNJ’s Internal Regiment, and then gives rise to the first resolution of disciplinary matters, is described and analyzed.  Ultimately, this path results in the current regulation, the Resolution 135/2011, which promotes significant changes in the disciplinary rules and, because of that a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade -ADI) challenged it before the Brazilian Supreme Court.O Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ), criado em 2004, é o órgão administrativo de cúpula do Poder Judiciário (artigo 103-B da Constituição Federal). Essa instituição conta com competência para editar normas que vinculam os Tribunais brasileiros, com exceção do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e para exercer o controle funcional da magistratura nacional. O presente artigo é um estudo de caso que explora um aspecto específico dessas funções do CNJ em sua atuação: o poder regulamentar em matéria de controle disciplinar da magistratura. Nosso objetivo central é entender a dinâmica institucional existente e como esse tema foi trabalhado ao longo da história do Conselho: que tipos de resistências foram encontrados neste processo e quais atores se envolveram nas discussões existentes. Será descrito e analisado um percurso que se inicia com uma regulação frágil por meio de normas do Regimento Interno, dá lugar a uma primeira resolução unificadora da matéria disciplinar e, finalmente, à norma definitiva, a Resolução 135/2011, a qual promove significativas mudanças no regramento disciplinar – e que, muito por isso, é objeto de uma Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade.Rede de Estudos Empíricos em Direito2015-01-31info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/6110.19092/reed.v2i1.61Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies; Vol. 2 No. 1 (2015): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal StudiesRevista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito; v. 2 n. 1 (2015): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito2319-081710.19092/reed.v2i1reponame:Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direitoinstname:Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED)instacron:RPEDporhttps://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/61/61Franco, Ivan Candido da Silva deinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2020-07-05T16:24:50Zoai:ojs.emnuvens.com.br:article/61Revistahttps://reedrevista.org/reedONGhttps://reedrevista.org/reed/oaimvchein@gmail.com||reed.revista@gmail.com2319-08172319-0817opendoar:2020-07-05T16:24:50Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito - Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
A resolução 135/CNJ e o desafio da regulamentação da magistratura
title CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
spellingShingle CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
Franco, Ivan Candido da Silva de
regulamentação
controle disciplinar
magistratura
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ)
Resolução 135/2011
regulation
disciplinary control
judiciary
National Council of Justice (CNJ)
Resolution 135/2011
title_short CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
title_full CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
title_fullStr CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
title_full_unstemmed CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
title_sort CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
author Franco, Ivan Candido da Silva de
author_facet Franco, Ivan Candido da Silva de
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Franco, Ivan Candido da Silva de
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv regulamentação
controle disciplinar
magistratura
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ)
Resolução 135/2011
regulation
disciplinary control
judiciary
National Council of Justice (CNJ)
Resolution 135/2011
topic regulamentação
controle disciplinar
magistratura
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ)
Resolução 135/2011
regulation
disciplinary control
judiciary
National Council of Justice (CNJ)
Resolution 135/2011
description The National Council of Justice (Conselho Nacional de Justiça - CNJ), created in 2004, is the administrative governing body of the Brazilian Judicial Branch (Article 103- B of the Constitution). It has the responsibility of editing rules that all the Brazilian courts must follow, except the Supreme Court (STF), and of exercising disciplinary control of judges. This article is a case study that explores a specific aspect of the CNJ’s mandate: the regulation of the disciplinary control of the judiciary. Our main goal is to understand the existing institutional dynamics and to understand how this issue was undertaken throughout the Council’s history: what kind of resistance was encountered in this process and which actors were involved in the ongoing debates. The institutional path, which begins with a fragile regulation from the CNJ’s Internal Regiment, and then gives rise to the first resolution of disciplinary matters, is described and analyzed.  Ultimately, this path results in the current regulation, the Resolution 135/2011, which promotes significant changes in the disciplinary rules and, because of that a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade -ADI) challenged it before the Brazilian Supreme Court.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-01-31
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/61
10.19092/reed.v2i1.61
url https://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/61
identifier_str_mv 10.19092/reed.v2i1.61
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://reedrevista.org/reed/article/view/61/61
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Rede de Estudos Empíricos em Direito
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Rede de Estudos Empíricos em Direito
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies; Vol. 2 No. 1 (2015): Brazilian Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito; v. 2 n. 1 (2015): Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito
2319-0817
10.19092/reed.v2i1
reponame:Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito
instname:Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED)
instacron:RPED
instname_str Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED)
instacron_str RPED
institution RPED
reponame_str Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito
collection Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista de Estudos Empíricos em Direito - Rede de Pesquisa Empírica em Direito (REED)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mvchein@gmail.com||reed.revista@gmail.com
_version_ 1799138703009906688