The main challenges, the legal foundations and the practical solutions for increasing the effectiveness of judicial decisions in the Special Courts were the central points highlighted by Judge Erick Linhares, of the Roraima Court of Justice, who gave the lecture “Effectiveness of Enforcement in the Special Courts” on Thursday evening (5/6), virtually. The event marked the end of the 30 Years of Special Courts: Perspectives and Challenges program, part of the II National Week of Special Courts.
During his explanation, mediated by Judge Marcelo Faccione (TJTO), the Justice shared his experience and vision of the challenges faced in the execution stage of decisions handed down under the Law No. 9.099/1995. “We're going to talk about the origin of the Courts, the interaction with the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure) and, finally, enforcement, its crises and possible solutions,” he said.
Linhares recalled that the Special Courts were born inspired by the proposal of a simple Justice system, accessible and close to the community. “The idea originated in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, with the so-called neighborhood Justice movements.” The magistrate pointed out that the Law No. 7,244/1984, known as the Small Claims Law, inspired No. 9,099, but without clearly providing for the execution phase, which led to claims being referred to the civil courts. “It was a structural problem,” he said.
Regarding the compatibility between the Code of Civil Procedure and the Law 9.099, the speaker explained that the reference to the CPC appears in three points: impediment/suspicion (art. 30), execution of sentence (art. 52) and execution of extrajudicial title (art. 53). "When the law says ‘where applicable’, we are dealing with a compatibility filter. The CPC can only be applied if it respects the principles of the Article 2 of No. 9,099: orality, simplicity, informality, procedural economy, speed and self-composition," he said.
Dificulties In The Enforcement
Linhares detailed the main bottlenecks that make the effectiveness of decisions in the Courts difficult and, based on the work of Judge Marcos Fava, from the TRT-SP, he presented three types of crisis: structural - related to the lack of resources and structure -; default - in which the debtor doesn't pay due to the absence of assets -; and interpretative - which depends on the actions of the magistrates to make the decisions effective.
“We judges are the ones who make the process effective. The way we read the CPC, No. 9,099 and their interactions is what determines the effectiveness of the decisions," he defended.
Practical Paths
When addressing solutions, Linhares highlighted the importance of expanding the liability side of the enforcement, especially through the disregard of legal personality. And he drew attention to the active role of the executor in the search for solutions and procedural tools. According to him, the executor can - and should - provide the magistrate with information that facilitates the execution. The more proactive they are, the greater the chances of an effective enforcement.
Closing with a quote from Jurist Barbosa Moreira, the speaker reinforced the role of judges as agents of transformation:
“No procedural system will work without judges who are committed to making it work.”
