Métodos adequados de resolução de conflitos em matérias de direito público: uma análise empírica em mutirão de conciliação envolvendo ações de improbidade administrativa em trâmite no TJ-MT

Abstract

If we ask any citizen what he or she thinks of justice, we may have as an answer, a dissatisfaction based on the slowness, onerosity and inefficiency of the provision of judicial services. There is disbelief in the traditional justice system. The performance of professionals is criticized for several reasons: long-winded, bureaucratic, procrastinating, self-serving, corrupt, partial and unprepared conduct. When checking their practices, other factors come into play, such as the various types of legally possible pieces of evidence and the difficulty in producing them. Furthermore, since no two people are equal, the diverse characteristics of judges who may not have identical training, social, family, cultural development, and unique reasoning, will result in different conclusions, leading to a high rate of appeals. Adversities occur throughout the action: parties and witnesses are not found (change of address, death, uncertain location); non-attendance of these people or their representatives (death, illness, travel, transportation problems); impediments of the judge (transfer, promotion, conflict of interest, calls by a higher body, attention to cases considered to be more urgent). Reality reveals how difficult it is to plan and execute the various procedural acts. For those who are used to working in the system, this is nothing new. There are enough examples to give support to the purpose of this research, that is, to demonstrate that it is possible to achieve efficiency through the use of alternative methods of conflict resolution, in virtually all areas of law. In the first chapter, a general context on the consensual methods of conflict resolution is provided. Then, the application of these methods in matters of public law is approached. This is an essential study, due to the recent permissive legislative changes, since the feeling of legal prohibition is still strongly rooted in the minds of law professionals, especially regarding the unavailability of public law and the possibility of compromise. In the end, the results achieved by a theoretical and empirical research seek to demonstrate the possibility of reaching agreements in terms of misconduct in public offices, legally prohibited until recently. Their authorization only came about very close to the end 2019, when the law was greatly modified to authorize and bring specific rules to the procedure in question. As mentioned before, this field study has as its starting point the organization, creation of partnerships, collection and analysis of the results of a conciliation task force in public office misconduct actions filed with the TJ-MT (Supreme Court of the State of Mato Grosso) during three months. That brought enough results to respond to the proposed thesis, consisting of knowing whether it was productive to reach agreements in public office misconduct actions and prove their efficiency. Considering that the type of action chosen is one of the most controversial, depending on the results obtained, the view on the use of alternative conflict methods in almost all types of actions will be greatly expanded. Furthermore, there will be enormous gains in access to justice and in the delivery of faster, less costly and efficient results.