PARTIALITY IN THIRD PARTY REMEDIES AND ITS REPERCUSSION ON THE MAIN PROCESS

Abstract

This article examines the introduction of opposition to third-party embargoes that can subjectively interfere with the competent court. Such interference may arise through the identification of suspicion, impediment, or incompatibility. The aim is to determine the most appropriate judicial approach in such situations. It is argued that if partiality results in a loss of ability to adjudicate on third-party embargoes, the same issue will arise in the primary process, leading to incompetence. As the procedural correlation mandates that both cases be judged by the same court, they should be transferred to a different judicial authority. The research methodology used was qualitative analysis, utilizing bibliographic and documentary development. The discussion centers around the correlation between the legal proceedings and the theory of judicial aptitude outlined in the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure.