THE TRANSFORMATIONS OF JUDGMENT SESSIONS: FROM PHYSICAL PRESENCE TO THE VIRTUALIZATION OF JURISDICTION

Abstract

This article analyzes the evolution of the different types of judgment sessions in Brazilian civil procedure, based on the systematization of the current Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and the profound transformations brought about by the virtualization of jurisdiction. In recent years, judicial activity has undergone a deep procedural and technological transformation, with a notable impact on several procedural stages and acts, particularly in the conduct of court judgment sessions, resulting in the emergence of new forms and categories. The purpose of this study is to examine how the Judiciary has adapted its judgment sessions and developed distinct models of deliberation, evolving from what was originally envisioned in the CPC to encompass in-person synchronous sessions, virtual or hybrid synchronous sessions, and asynchronous virtual sessions. The normative foundations of these developments are analyzed, focusing primarily on resolutions of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) — especially Resolution No. 591/2024 — and the internal regulations of the courts, particularly the regimental amendments of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), which aim to standardize the modes of judgment sessions throughout the country. The examination of these acts and the coexistence of diverse models of judgment sessions within current judicial practice reveal significant technological progress aimed at increasing speed and procedural efficiency, enabling courts to handle a larger caseload. However, this modernization has a notable impact on the adversarial principle, particularly regarding the innovation of recorded oral arguments, which risks diminishing deliberative debate. Using the inductive–deductive method, the research analyzes statutes, case law, and scholarly doctrine to demonstrate that technological tools must serve the promotion of justice rather than weaken the dialogical relationship between judges and litigants.