THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE HEARING DRIVES PROMOTED BY THE COORDINATOR OF THE SPECIAL CIVIL COURTS OF PERNAMBUCO AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SPEED

Abstract

Procedural speed is defined as the obligation of the judicial system to resolve disputes within a reasonable timeframe, avoiding delays that could hinder access to justice and the enforcement of rights. This principle is crucial because prolonged delays can result in injustice, deterioration of the parties' conditions, and loss of relevance of judicial decisions.

In Brazil, procedural speed is a constitutionally guaranteed principle, reinforced by Article 5, Section LXXVIII, of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees everyone, in the judicial and administrative spheres, a reasonable duration of proceedings and the means to ensure their speed. This provision was introduced by Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004, known as the Judicial Reform, which aimed to adapt the legal system to the demands of a more agile process.

The Small Claims Courts are exemplary in the application of the principle of speed. Created by Law No. 9,099/95, these courts aim to resolve less complex disputes quickly and with simplified procedures. The law eliminates unnecessary procedural formalities, encourages conciliation, and limits the possibilities for appeal, all in the name of speed.

Despite the legal structure and clear intentions, the practical implementation of procedural speed in the special courts faces several challenges. Among these are the lack of resources (human and structural), excessive demand in the courts, and the need to balance speed with due procedural diligence. One of the biggest obstacles to speed in the Special Civil Courts (JECs) is the high demand for cases, which often exceeds the courts' processing capacity. The high volume of cases leads to delays in hearings and case processing, diluting the purpose of speed that underpins the Special Courts. The lack of adequate resources is another significant challenge. This includes both human resources, such as judges and staff, and material resources, such as cutting-edge technology for case management. A lack of resources can directly affect the efficiency of case processing and the overall administration of the courts.

The challenges to procedural speed in the Small Claims Courts are multifaceted and require a holistic approach to overcome. This can range from increasing resources and staff training to implementing strategies such as the Pernambuco Small Claims Court and Consumer Relations Court Hearing Groups.

In Pernambuco, the Small Claims Court and Consumer Relations Coordination Office plays a vital role in promoting access to justice, especially for those seeking to resolve less complex disputes and consumer-related issues. One of the Coordination Office's most significant initiatives is the regular hearing group, which is organized periodically to expedite case processing and reduce the backlog of pending cases. The primary objective of the hearing group is to provide a quick and effective resolution to a large volume of cases, many of which involve consumer issues, which frequently accumulate in the Small Claims Courts. These events are strategically planned to optimize court resources, improve the efficiency of the judicial system, and, most importantly, satisfy citizens' demand for swift and accessible justice. During a mass gathering, selected cases are brought in large numbers for concentrated hearings on specific days. These events are typically held in locations that can accommodate a large number of participants, including parties, attorneys, judges, and conciliators. Hearings are designed to be as efficient as possible, with each case receiving detailed yet concise attention to maximize the number of resolutions achieved.

1.1 HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis proposed for this study is that the joint hearings, implemented by the Coordination of Small Claims Courts and Consumer Relations of Pernambuco, are effective in optimizing the judicial system. This effectiveness is observed through a significant reduction in waiting times for cases to be heard. Additionally, it is suggested that the joint hearings promote conciliation as an amicable and efficient way to resolve disputes, contributing to the harmonious and constructive resolution of conflicts. The hypothesis suggests that this concentration of efforts results in a significant reduction in waiting times for trial, compared to periods in which the joint hearings are not held. This reduction in waiting times is vital to the efficiency of the judicial system, as long waiting times can diminish the relevance of judicial decisions and increase public discontent with the justice system. Finally, the hypothesis includes the idea that the joint hearings encourage the practice of conciliation. This form of dispute resolution is considered more amicable and less adversarial than traditional litigation. Conciliation can lead to more satisfactory solutions for the parties involved, helping to preserve relationships and reduce hostility, which is particularly beneficial in consumer disputes and other civil matters.

Conciliation indicators in state courts in Brazil reflect the ability of these courts to resolve disputes through alternative methods to traditional litigation. The growing emphasis on conciliation is part of a larger strategy to decongest the judicial system, speed up case processing, and increase party satisfaction (CNJ, 2020). The CNJ (2020) also notes that the success of these efforts can vary significantly across states, depending on factors such as the number of available judges, the workload, and the resources allocated to conciliation activities.

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTION

A significant gap in the research concerns the lack of specific data on the outcomes of the conciliation sessions promoted by the Coordination of Small Claims Courts and Consumer Relations of Pernambuco in the "Justice in Numbers Panel" of the National Council of Justice (CNJ). While it compiles detailed data on court performance, including conciliation rates, it does not address this specific area.

This study is particularly relevant because it seeks to fill a significant gap in the literature on the effectiveness of conciliation sessions, specifically in the context of the state of Pernambuco. Despite the widespread recognition of the importance of these events in resolving disputes and reducing the caseload in small claims courts, there are few studies that systematically and in detail evaluate their outcomes in this region. By focusing on Conciliation Week in Pernambuco, this study aims not only to document and analyze the specific impacts of these initiatives, but also to expand knowledge and provide recommendations that can be used to improve future conciliation sessions, thus contributing to the continuous improvement of the administration of justice in the state.

The central question guiding this research is: What is the impact of the National Conciliation Week conciliation sessions on the effectiveness of dispute resolution in the Small Claims Courts, considering the rate of agreements reached and the reduction in the average time to resolve cases?

1.3 OBJECTIVES
1.3.1 General Objective

The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the hearing sessions held during National Conciliation Week, promoted by the Pernambuco Small Claims Court Coordination Office, with a focus on procedural speed. This study aims to understand whether these initiatives accelerate case resolution and contribute to more accessible and efficient justice.