The 4th class of the STJ considered a valid agreement on child custody and pension payment approved by the CEJUSC-Judicial Center for Conflict and citizenship solution, even if there was a sentence given in the case. It was the first decision in which the STJ recognized the importance of the centre established by CNJ resolution 125/10 – in the promotion of alternative conflict resolution.

The public prosecutor of Acre, author of the special resource that intended to invalidate the agreement, said that the prevention of family judgment was violated. According to the MP, the food action had already been sentenced by the first family stick of the district of Rio Branco/AC When the agreement was signed by the couple in the CEJUSC and approved by the Judge Coordinator.

For the applicant, if there was a change in the economic situation of one of the parties that justified the revision of the food allowance, the revisional action should have been proposed in the first Family stick, as it is ancillary to the action of food.

Without addiction or injury

According to Minister Marco Buzzi, draftsman of the appeal, "the procedural invalidity is a sanction that can only be recognized or applied by the judge, in any degree of jurisdiction, if there is a combination of the defect of the procedural act with the existence of effective Injury. "

The minister said that "the delivery of judgment in food action does not make the sentencing judgment Prewind to approve agreement that verse on the matter", recognizing the possibility of acting of any family judgment or even the CEJUSC's coordinating judge, By interpretation of docket 235 of the STJ ("The connection does not determine the meeting of proceedings if one of them has already been sentenced").

"In the case, the coordinating judge of the CEJUSC, in the exercise of his competence, whose performance did not involve any resisted pretension between the parties, but the mere voluntary and public administration of family interests, verified the convenience of the Act, as well as the Lack of addiction or any damage to the defendants or their descendants. "

The Minister highlighted the need to prevail "the principles of the dignity of the human person and the instrumentality of forms, which today lead to the provision of fair and timely judicial protection".

Mentality change

Marco Buzzi explained that the CNJ, with the publication of resolution 125/10, regulated the creation and operation, in all the courts, of cores focused on the attendance of the population in the resolution of the most recurring conflicts.

"The measure is part of the national policy for the treatment of conflicts of interest, which aims to ensure the conciliation and mediation of controversies between the parties," he clarified. In this sense, the parties involved in a conflict entrust a third party with the role of assisting them in reaching an agreement. "This initiative avoids future judicial or appeal and allows the definitive solution of the litigation, decreasing the great demand of the processes in process," said the minister.

"We cannot postpone the change of mindset on the part of our society regarding the search for a judicial verdict as the only way to resolve controversies, as the resolution CNJ 125/10 has sparked a national public policy to be followed by all the judges and Federation courts, confirmed by the current code of Civil procedure, consistent in the promotion and effect of the most appropriate means of settlement of disputes, among them conciliation, for representing the most appropriate solution to conflicts of interest, in Reason for the decisive participation of both parties in the search for the result that satisfies widely their yearnings. "

According to the minister, the case judged by the fourth class should serve as a "paradigm to the other federation courts as to the need to disseminate more intensely the culture of the search for dispute settlement through the use of alternate methods to those of conventional jurisdiction systems. "

This purpose, added Buzzi, is expressed in article 16 of law 13.140/15, which, however, is not applicable to the case judged, because it was not in force at the time of the facts: "Even if there is an arbitration or judicial process in progress, the parties may submit to Mediation, which would require the judge or arbitrator to suspend the proceedings by sufficient time for the consensual solution of the dispute. "

Source: STJ