CNJ’s resolution 135 and the challenge of regulating the judiciary
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
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 |