The constitutionalization of the right to health, the consolidation of the legal framework of the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde – SUS) and its structuring within Brazilian cooperative federalism—whose responsibilities and funding are shared among the Federal Government, States, and Municipalities—together with increased public awareness of these rights, constitute some of the main causes of the judicialization of the right to health in Brazil. Pursuant to Article 23, item II, of the Federal Constitution, the duty to implement public policies is incumbent upon all three levels of government. This provision establishes the shared competence of the federative entities to act in the provision of health care in a coordinated and parallel manner, which is characteristic of cooperative federalism. Such action is to be carried out through a unified system that is regionalized, decentralized, and hierarchical, as provided in Article 198 of the Constitution. This constitutional arrangement has given rise to numerous uncertainties in its implementation, particularly regarding the type of liability that should apply among the federative entities—whether joint and several (solidary), subsidiary, or a combination of both. Nevertheless, the thesis of solidarity within the scope of the SUS, which prevailed for many years in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), can only be properly understood as cooperative and collaborative responsibility. Brazil adopts a federal form of state, which presupposes political decentralization, with power distributed among multiple centers through constitutionally defined competences. Allowing any health-related obligation to be demanded from any federative entity at the discretion of the claimant results in a re-centralization of responsibility and, consequently, undermines the federalist structure. It is therefore essential to consider that federative entities must assume obligations compatible with their demographic size, socioeconomic conditions, geographic characteristics, and epidemiological profile, in order to reduce—rather than exacerbate—federative inequalities. The recognition of general repercussion regarding the existence or non-existence of joint and several liability among federative entities for the provision of health care, in Extraordinary Appeal (RE) No. 855,178 (Theme 793) in 2015, represented a significant step toward improving the Judiciary’s handling of public health litigation, given both the relevance of the issue and the substantial number of cases concerning solidary liability pending before the STF. Subsequently, the adjudication of the motions for clarification in May 2019 led to a shift in the previously established thesis concerning solidarity among federative entities in health-related claims, which will be examined in this study. More recently, the judgment of General Repercussion Theme No. 1234, through the ratification of inter-federative agreements in September 2024, once again altered the legal paradigm of federative solidarity in health care in Brazil. Together with the enactment of Binding Precedents (Súmulas Vinculantes) Nos. 60 and 61, this development evidenced the predominance of subsidiary liability grounded in SUS legislation, as well as the primacy of administrative discretion in the selection of public policies over judicial decision-making. From the perspective of reducing judicialization, this shift appears to represent a significant institutional advancement. The importance of re-signifying the paradigm of solidarity is of interest to all stakeholders, particularly the Judiciary, as it enables ordinary courts to achieve a higher degree of predictability regarding the scope of their own competences and to issue more precise and effective judicial commands, thereby reducing litigation among federative entities (including fewer regressive claims, such as the phenomenon commonly referred to as the “judicialization of judiciali

This thesis examines the application of Binding Precedent 56 (Súmula Vinculante 56) within the São Paulo criminal justice system. It argues that, given the structural challenges of expanding prison capacity, this precedent serves as an essential tool for mitigating overcrowding and ensuring that sentencing remains aligned with both legal and constitutional standards. The main goal is to investigate the extent to which Binding Precedent 56 has effectively impacted sentence enforcement. This is analyzed at both the macrostructural level—through the development of jurisprudence focused on managing prison capacity and the adoption of alternative measures under General Repercussion Theme 423 (Tema da Repercussão Geral) —and at the individual level, by preventing inmates from serving sentences beyond their prescribed terms. To this end, this study examined Constitutional Complaints (Reclamação Constitucional) brought before the Brazilian Supreme Court against rulings from the São Paulo state courts, spanning from the issuance of the precedent through March 19, 2025. Additionally, it includes a case study of Complaint 58207, in which the São Paulo Public Defender’s Office sought judicial intervention to address overcrowding at the Pacaembu Penitentiary Progression Center. Based on the data collected and the theoretical frameworks of constitutional review, structural litigation, and the precedent system, this study offers a systemic diagnosis and critical assessment on the ineffectiveness of Binding Precedent 56 in São Paulo. Special attention is given to the roles of the key institutional actors involved: the state judiciary, the São Paulo Public Defender’s Office, and the Federal Supreme Court. The study concludes that, despite being in force for nearly a decade, Binding Precedent No. 56 has yet to be effectively integrated into the São Paulo penal system. This failure stems not only from structural limitations or institutional indifference but, primarily, from a systemic and deliberate non-compliance by the local judiciary. Within this context, the mobilization of the State Public Defender's Office has proven decisive, serving as a strategic force in exposing these structural failures and challenging the judicial status quo. Conversely, the study finds that the Brazilian Supreme Court may have inadvertently contributed to the precedent’s vertical ineffectiveness, leaving its horizontal impact as an institutional blind spot. The Court’s reliance on a decentralized deliberative model, combined with dissenting opinions that hollow out the precedent's normative force, ultimately undermines its capacity to provide uniform guidance to the lower courts. Nevertheless, a jurisprudential shift emerged following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Pacaembu CPP Complaint — the first case in which a collective approach was applied to Binding Precedent 56. Although the case remains pending, its handling suggests that the procedural flexibility and collaborative dialogue inherent in structural litigation may offer a promising path for the precedent to finally achieve its full impact within the penal execution phase.

This research analyzes the role and capacity of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in the difficult task of inducing public policies and coordinating structural responses to address serious violations of the fundamental rights of prisoners, ten years after the recognition of the Unconstitutional State of Affairs (ECI) of the Brazilian prison system (ADPF 347). The dissertation reconstructs the procedural itinerary (initial petition, precautionary measure, incidents, merits, and approval of the Just Sentence Plan), revisits the theoretical bases of public policies, structural processes, and the ECI institute, presenting, through relevant empirical evidence, reflections on political deliberations with potential impact on the unconstitutional state of affairs in the Brazilian penitentiary system. Methodologically, it articulates legal-dogmatic analysis with the reading of historical series and public governance documents (CNJ, SENAPPEN, MJSP), emphasizing the principle of human dignity, the prohibition of insufficient protection, and the logic of gradual remedies with judicial supervision. Regarding advancements, noteworthy achievements include the nationwide implementation of custody hearings (presentation within 24 hours), normative standardization by the CNJ (National Council of Justice), the release of FUNPEN (National Penitentiary Fund) resources, and the strengthening of negotiation instruments such as the Non-Prosecution Agreement, with the potential to reduce unnecessary entries and improve legality and proportionality filters. Institutionally, the approval of the Just Penalty Plan inaugurates a governance design oriented towards goals, indicators, and active transparency, including monitoring by regime and federative coordination. Among the setbacks, the dissertation analyzes Law 13.964/2019 (Anti-Crime Package), which raised the objective levels for progression (art. 112, LEP - Law of Criminal Execution) and the ceiling of art. 75 of the Penal Code to 40 years, resulting in longer stays in harsher regimes. The study also examines Law 14.843/2024 (“Law of Temporary Releases”), which restricts temporary releases, expands the scope of electronic monitoring, and reinforces criminological examinations—measures associated with risks of “stacking” in severe regimes, weakening of family/educational ties, and stigmas that hinder reintegration. Together, these normative changes put pressure on existing prison populations and strain the overcoming of the State of Incarceration. In terms of perspectives, the research conducts an empirical analysis of the recent evolution of the incarceration curve, even after the proclamation of the State of Incarceration, indicating that the legislative reforms mentioned in the section on setbacks tend to exert pressure on prison populations if they are not accompanied by compensatory policies for managing entry, stay, and exit from the system. In conclusion, this work argues that the decisions in ADPF 347 were necessary and partially effective: they consolidated bases for coordination and transparency, but are still insufficient to reverse the trend of increasing incarceration without robust counterbalancing measures at the entry points, during the course of serving the sentence, and at the exit points. Overcoming the situation observed in the judgment of ADPF 347 depends on normative, budgetary, and managerial convergence, with auditable metrics and social participation to sustain legitimacy and verifiable results.

This dissertation analyzes the process of institutionalizing consensuality within the Federal Supreme Court, with an emphasis on the challenges related to its proceduralization in the context of constitutional jurisdiction. It starts from the observation that, in recent decades, the Brazilian justice system has undergone significant transformations, marked by the growing appreciation of consensual mechanisms for dispute resolution, which have been incorporated as judicial policy. In this context, the Federal Supreme Court has progressively adopted institutional structures aimed at promoting self-composition, such as the Mediation and Conciliation Center (CMC), the Alternative Dispute Resolution Center (CESAL), and the Consensual Conflict Resolution Unit (NUSOL).The research investigates the extent to which the normative evolution of these structures represents an effective process of proceduralizing consensuality, understood as the establishment of institutional rules capable of organizing the conduct of negotiations within the Court. To this end, a qualitative methodology is employed, based on documentary and normative analysis, with a comparative examination of the acts that created such mechanisms, in light of analytical categories such as initiation criteria, definition of participants, procedural stages, forms of record-keeping, and mechanisms of institutional control.The results indicate that, although there has been progress in the institutionalization of consensuality within the Federal Supreme Court, this movement has not been matched, to the same extent, by the definition of clear, structured, and uniform procedures. There is a prevalence of open-ended rules and a significant degree of discretion in the conduct of consensual practices, which may undermine the predictability, transparency, and legitimacy of these initiatives.It is concluded that consensuality, within the framework of constitutional jurisdiction, presents significant potential as a complementary instrument for resolving complex disputes, especially those of a structural nature. However, its effectiveness depends on the development of an institutional model that balances flexibility and proceduralization, ensuring legal certainty and democratic oversight of negotiation practices.

The integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) into the Brazilian Judiciary has been advancing rapidly. At the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF), the MARIA system (Modelo Automatizado de Redação e Inteligência Artificial – Automated Legal Writing and Artificial Intelligence Model) stands out as the Court's first generative AI tool, with one of its primary functions being the automated drafting of judicial headnotes (ementas) from the reporting Justice's written opinion. This dissertation empirically evaluates the efficacy and limitations of MARIA in the automated drafting of headnotes, based on a sample of seventeen Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) published between August 13 and December 16, 2024 – a period spanning the adoption of the new standardized headnote model recommended by the National Council of Justice (CNJ) and the launch of the tool. Headnotes generated by the system in a test environment, prior to any human review, are compared with headnotes produced entirely by human editors for the same cases; both are assessed according to adequacy criteria drawn from specialized scholarship, normative guidelines, and institutional standards applicable to this legal-technical document. An evaluation matrix was structured around ten criteria distributed across three dimensions (structural/formal, informational, and linguistic-communicational) with each headnote classified as Adequate, Partially Adequate, or Inadequate. The results reveal a performance profile that combines informational reliability with recurring and classifiable communicational weaknesses. On informational fidelity, MARIA performed comparably to human editors; the rate of factual hallucinations was very low, with a single occurrence across seventeen cases. The findings confirm that the system exhibits recurring and classifiable failures that justify maintaining mandatory human review prior to publication, in line with CNJ Resolution n. 615/2025. At the same time, they demonstrate the system's value as an auxiliary tool, shifting the drafting clerk's role from full composition to the critical review of structured drafts, with quantitative gains in efficiency and potential qualitative improvements in headnote production. The study identifies the priority areas for human review and points to concrete pathways for the technical improvement of the system.

This dissertation analyzes the use of consensual solutions in the resolution of federative conflicts within the scope of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF), with a specific focus on Original Civil Actions (Ações Cíveis Originárias – ACOs) and on the performance of the Center for Consensual Conflict Resolution (Núcleo de Solução Consensual de Conflitos – NUSOL). The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of consensuality as an instrument of institutional pacification, as well as to identify its impacts, potentialities, and limitations in the resolution of federative disputes. To this end, an empirical, qualitative, and exploratory methodology was adopted, based on the analysis of data concerning 3,310 ACOs filed between 1988 and 2024, the update of Dantas (2020) research, and the examination of data from the NUSOL Civil Agreements Panel, specifically regarding the cases referred to the Center. The results demonstrate that federative litigation before the STF is predominantly fiscal in nature, with strong protagonism and a high success rate of the States, as well as the predominance of monocratic judgments. Regarding consensuality, the study identified the progressive institutionalization of conciliatory mechanisms, although still marked by structural limitations, informational inconsistencies, and selective application. The findings also corroborate the perception that ACOs constitute the procedural class most conducive to the expansion of the multi-door justice model within the STF. The research concludes that the STF’s dialogical opening, through NUSOL, represents a relevant advancement in the cooperative stabilization of the federative pact, with the potential to transform vertical conflicts into horizontal cooperation dynamics. However, the consolidation of this dialogical decision-making model requires overcoming procedural and administrative shortcomings, as well as strengthening the institutional role of the Center as a strategic axis for the implementation of consensual constitutional jurisdiction, so that the agreements reached transcend mere pragmatic settlement and assume the role of effective instances of participatory constitutional justice among federative entities. Additionally, as a technical outcome of the research, and in light of the discrepancy identified between the data recorded in the Panel and the actual case records, the “Protocol for Data Insertion and Governance of the Civil Procedures Panel of the STF Center for Consensual Conflict Resolution” was developed, proposing objective parameters for data transparency and governance, as well as empirical criteria for assessing the effectiveness of consensual practices within the Court.

This study examines the collegiate judgments in which the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice declined to apply precedent 918/STJ and precedent summary 593/STJ to cases of statutory rape, instances grouped under the label Romeo and Juliet exception (close-in-age exception), asking whether they identified legally relevant differences from the precedent or merely gave renewed weight to circumstances that its ratio decidendi had already set aside. Through documentary research and the Decision Analysis Methodology (DAM), with the argument as the unit of analysis, 135 collegiate judgments published between August 2015 and September 2025 were examined. Up to May 2021, the 46 collegiate judgments located applied the ratio decidendi of the precedent without exception; among the 89 later ones, 65 upheld the conviction and 24 acquitted, with the binding thesis remaining the majority position. Among the acquittals, closeness in age appears in 12 collegiate judgments, half of the set, a lower frequency than that of the absence of material harm, of the lack of necessity or the disproportionality of the penalty, and of the protection of the children and of the family that had been formed, without ever sufficing, on its own, to justify an acquittal. Further among the findings, 21 collegiate judgments invoked distinguishing without demonstrating how the circumstances relied on would affect the ratio decidendi; 1 acquitted on the ground of an unavoidable mistake of law; and 2, REsp 1.524.494/RN and AREsp 1.555.030/GO, having recognized the applicability of Article 217-A of the Penal Code, set aside only the criminal consequence, and are classified as contra legem precedents. Within the limits of a corpus restricted to collegiate judgments, it is concluded that the acquittals did not form a ratio decidendi capable of superseding the precedent established in repetitive appeals. Finally, it is proposed that this precedent be revisited by the Third Section, in order to reaffirm the scope of the thesis and to delimit what may count as a distinction, and that the requirements of the Romeo and Juliet exception be expressly defined by statute.

This empirical and quantitative research examines, through primary data, the incorporation of the Virtual Plenary (Plenário Virtual) into the collegiate decision-making activity of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) in concentrated constitutional review. The database was built through web scraping of the Court's official portal, covering the 9,358 cases of the four concentrated review classes since 1988. The historical series of pending cases (acervo), reconstructed from 1988 to 2025, revealed an unprecedented sequence of retraction beginning in 2018 and still ongoing. Within the 2016-2025 timeframe, each listing for judgment (inclusão em pauta) was classified by environment, type of question, and outcome, allowing the Court to be compared with its own practices prior to the universalization of the virtual environment. The virtual environment's share stabilized at around two thirds of all listings, with an equivalent composition by class in both environments. After universalization, more than three quarters of the cases were processed exclusively in the virtual environment, which absorbed nearly the entirety of appellate activity and of completed judgments, with higher completion rates per listing and per case. Non-completions revealed distinct causes in the two environments, associated with a deliberative act in the virtual environment and with the absence of judgment on the scheduled date in the in-person one. Usage did not recede after the end of the public health emergency, and regulation has continued. In light of the Oslo Manual 2018, this set of findings characterizes a consolidated institutional innovation, marked by effective implementation, measurable value creation, and confirmed permanence. The dissertation is accompanied by a technical product on the quality of procedural records, with a proposal for their standardization.

This dissertation analyzes the application of generative artificial intelligence within the Brazilian Judiciary, focus on the extraction of legal controversies from Special Appeals (REsp) and Aggrieved Special Appeals (AREsp) at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). The research problem examines to what extent large language models (LLMs), supported by prompt engineering and institutionally curated datasets, can assist the sorting of repetitive appeals at the Admissibility, Repetitive Appeals, and Relevance Advisory Office (ARP), while preserving legal accuracy and human oversight requirements. The study adopts a qualitative, descriptive-applied approach, grounded on the regulatory analysis of CNJ Resolutions 332/2020 and 615/2025, alongside a comparative analysis of institutional AI tools (such as Victor, Athos, and STJ Logos) and scientific literature regarding LLM performance in legal tasks. As a result, this work proposes an informational architecture based on open data and a structured prompt repository tailored for ARP's core activities. It concludes that generative AI is a valuable supportive mechanism for precedent management, provided it is operated under the double-channel correction paradigm and strictly bound to strict governance safeguards and mandatory human review.

This dissertation investigates the concept and use of teratology by the collegiate bodies of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice as a ground for overcoming procedural barriers and for the exceptional review of judicial decisions. It starts from the premise that a teratological decision constitutes an indeterminate legal concept of jurisprudential origin and that, for this reason, its invocation requires qualified reasoning, especially in light of Article 489, paragraph 1, of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure of 2015. The research combines a theoretical-conceptual approach with an empirical-jurisprudential investigation. At the theoretical level, it examines the constitutional and statutory duty to provide reasons for judicial decisions, the role of indeterminate legal concepts, and the doctrinal construction of teratology. At the empirical level, it analyzes 1,027 collegiate judgments rendered by the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice between March 18, 2016, and December 31, 2025. The findings indicate that teratology is not applied uniformly by the Court, being especially concentrated in criminal panels, habeas corpus proceedings, and cases involving the overcoming of Precedent No. 691 of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court. The research also identifies a complete correlation between the recognition of teratology and the reversal of the challenged decision, as well as weaknesses in the explanation of the criteria used to characterize or reject the teratological label. Finally, it proposes understanding teratology as a genus of qualified legal defects, whose application must follow a controllable argumentative path – with identification of the type of defect, its degree or intensity, and the exceptional procedural consequence – capable of preserving the exceptional nature of the institute without undermining legal certainty.

The availability of a generative artificial intelligence tool does not, by itself, mean that the way judicial decisions are produced has changed. This study examines how Logos has been incorporated into the production of judicial decisions at the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (Superior Tribunal de Justiça – STJ). Based on this analysis, it investigates the extent to which the incorporation of the system is associated with substantive changes in work organization and productivity dynamics. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of digital transformation and augmented intelligence, the research adopts a qualitative and interpretive case study approach supported by quantitative evidence. The empirical material comprises institutional documents, a survey of 43 users, 177 systematically documented records of use, and a technical report on usage and productivity. The institutional dataset covers 1,095,054 draft decisions, a subset of which was used to compare usage levels across 36 anonymized judicial units. T he indicator records case-file queries in Logos but does not reveal the intensity of the interaction or whether the generated content was incorporated into the final draft. Recorded use increased but remained uneven: the monthly share rose from 8.63% in February 2025 to more than 30% from December 2025 through May 2026, while usage rates across the 36 units ranged from 0.83% to 68.70%. In the contexts examined, the evidence points to an ongoing organizational transformation that is limited in scope and uneven, reflected in the reorganization of case analysis, information processing, and preliminary decision drafting, without material changes to the STJ’s formal structure. The records show that the usefulness of Logos varied according to the task, the available documentation, the prompts, and the effort required to verify its outputs; prompt refinement and more selective use provided evidence of learning and adaptation. In the survey, 97.7% of participants associated Logos with greater speed in drafting decisi ons, and the same proportion recognized the need for careful human review. Comparisons across different levels of use indicated higher average productivity in subsequent periods, although only some of the differences were statistically significant. Because the study is observational, it identifies an association but does not establish that Logos caused the higher productivity or allow its contribution to be isolated from other factors. Taken together, the findings show that these changes arise not from the technology alone but from the interplay among its capabilities, the conditions of use, and professional practice. They include a redistribution of professional effort across document preparation, prompt formulation, output analysis, verification, and legal validation. Structured and reusable prompts can partially encode work methods and contribute to the development of an organizational capability, provided that they are shared, understood, updated, and subject to curation. These relationships are synthesized in an interpretive sociotechnical model that situates qualified human involvement throughout the entire process.

Introduction. Online marketplaces have become the leading channel of Brazilian retail, and with them the offering of goods whose sale is prohibited has spread. The question is which civil liability regime applies to the platform when an illicit product is advertised by a third party: the strict liability of the Consumer Protection Code or the judicial-order requirement of article 19 of the Brazilian Internet Civil Framework. The matter became pressing after the Federal Supreme Court declared article 19 partially and progressively unconstitutional in its joint ruling on Themes 987 and 533. Methods. The research combines three approaches. Doctrinally, it reconstructs the qualification of the marketplace as a service supplier and addresses the conflict between the two regimes through the dialogue of sources. Comparatively, it contrasts the United States model of conditional immunity with the European model of preventive duties under the Digital Services Act. Empirically, it analyses judgments of the Superior Court of Justice from 2011 to 2026, drawn from 240 decisions retrieved from the Court, fourteen of which were taken as representative and examined through a standardised analysis form. Results. The Superior Court of Justice does not decide on the basis of the legal interest harmed by the product, but on two prior variables: the functional position of the platform in the concrete transaction and the trigger giving rise to the duty to compensate. The type of illicit good operates as a factor grading the required diligence. The 2014 Internet Civil Framework did not produce the expected rupture, and no judgment after June 2025 invoked the Supreme Court theses as its ratio. Discussion. The sale of an illicit product is a category distinct from the personality harm that motivated the Supreme Court theses, and it fits the Consumer Protection Code regime as a defect of the intermediation service. From this finding the dissertation derives seven regulatory proposals organised around the Know Your Business Customer principle, subjected to an impact analysis that identifies three conditions of effectiveness: grading the duty by product risk and platform size, public provision of the verification infrastructure, and correspondence between the substantive standard and actual enforcement capacity.

This dissertation examines the application of the “well-founded reasons” standard for warrantless home entry in the context of drug control policy, focusing on the case law of the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) from 2023 to 2025. It is based on the understanding that the inviolability of the home is a fundamental right established in Article 5, XI, of the Brazilian Federal Constitution and that any restriction of this right requires rigorous review of the legal and constitutional requirements authorizing such an exceptional measure. The study aims to examine the criteria employed by the higher courts to uphold or invalidate warrantless home entries, identify convergences and divergences in their case law, and analyze the sociological profile of the defendants involved in the cases examined. Methodologically, this is an empirical study based on a predominantly qualitative approach, complemented by descriptive quantitative analysis of data obtained through documentary research into judicial decisions and case files. The initial corpus comprised 162 judgment records corresponding to 160 distinct cases, selected from an official case-law dataset provided by the STF. Following the application of the methodological exclusion criteria, the final sample comprised 89 judgment records published between 2023 and 2025. Sociological variables were also collected and systematized from the corresponding case files. The results revealed a significant interpretive conflict between the higher courts regarding the criteria required to establish “well-founded reasons.” The STJ adopted a stricter approach, requiring objective and verifiable elements to justify warrantless home entry, whereas the STF showed greater deference to police accounts and a greater tendency to uphold such measures. In 34 judgment records, the STJ found the home entry unlawful; the STF subsequently reversed that conclusion in 25 of them, corresponding to a reversal rate of approximately 73.5%. The study also identified a predominance of combined grounds, which were present in 71 of the 89 judgment records (79.8%). The classification of objective verifiability made it possible to distinguish the possibility of independently confirming a given element from the validity of the inferences drawn from it and from its legal sufficiency to establish “well-founded reasons.” One of the study’s main findings was that the developments observed in the application of General Repercussion Theme No. 280 resulted less from a formal modification of the rule established by the STF than from the gradual redefinition of the judicial criteria used to determine the practical meaning of “well-founded reasons.” In this context, the study identified an expansion of the circumstances in which police conduct was upheld and a more flexible standard of judicial review of warrantless home entries. The sociological data revealed a recurring presence of young adults, unemployed individuals, self-employed workers, and people engaged in manual occupations among the defendants included in the sample. These findings partially align with previous empirical studies on penal selectivity and drug control policy, although the limitations of the sample preclude generalization beyond the cases examined. The study concludes that the contemporary application of the “well-founded reasons” standard remains marked by interpretive conflict between the higher courts and by a gradual reconfiguration of the practical meaning of Theme No. 280, with significant consequences for the effectiveness of the constitutional protection of the home.

In the era of liquid surveillance, where individuals are constantly monitored, the Military Police paradoxically preserves the privilege of state invisibility on the streets in a dystopian manner. Despite the proven effectiveness of body-worn cameras (bodycams) in reducing lethality, the expansion of the "police mandate" and "street-level discretion" continue to operate in the shadows, especially in territories under suspicion (peripheries). Given the ineffectiveness of traditional control mechanisms, such as internal affairs, judicialization emerges as an alternative: through cases addressing structural criminal problems, the apex courts (STF in SL 1.696/SP and STJ in HC 598.051/SP) seek to impose audiovisual monitoring to curb violations. While data demonstrate that the majority of police officers reject the use of the equipment, this study investigates the prevailing tendency among segments of society. Through a validly administered survey to 770 residents with contrasting socio-spatial profiles in the Federal District — Sol Nascente (involuntary ghetto) and Jardim Botânico (voluntary ghetto) —, the research reveals the contrast between corporate resistance and the societal yearning for transparency. The findings highlight a societal majority trend: approximately 80% of the sampled population demands the mandatory and uninterrupted use of cameras, rejecting the officer's autonomy to turn off the device (70.91%). Furthermore, over 65% validate the corrective intervention of the Judiciary in response to the Executive branch's omission. The demand to watch the watchers consolidates itself, therefore, as an expectation for the stabilization of fundamental guarantees against arbitrariness.

This dissertation analyzes the regulatory activity exercised by the National Inspectorate of Justice of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) over notarial and registration services in Brazil. Understanding the historical evolution of the extrajudicial sector — from the transition of a patrimonialist regime to the private delegation model subject to the principle of public competitive examination and under state supervision established by the 1988 Constitution —, the study examines the role of the National Inspectorate of Justice as a sector regulator agent. The investigation addresses the research problem regarding the relationship between corrective normative practice and General Regulation Theory models, examining the extent to which the body's actions align with the Responsive Regulation paradigm formulated by Ian Ayres and John Braithwaite, as well as contemporary arrangements of meta-regulation and nodal governance. Grounded in the legal methodology of Nitish Monebhurrun, a quali-quantitative and auditable demonstration protocol was adopted to ensure analytical reproducibility. To this end, an analytical matrix based on four pillars was designed — Normative Co-construction, Republican Tripartism, Gradation/Flexibility, and Meta-Regulation —, applied to all regulations enacted for the extrajudicial sector between 2022 and 2026. The analysis demonstrated the overcoming of the traditional strict Command and Control model in favor of an consolidating responsive regulation, characterized by the frequent use of consensual instruments, reputational incentives, normative codification, and network articulation alongside National Operators. As a practical contribution to public management, the study proposes adopting the four-pillar matrix as a preventive governance checklist and institutionalizing Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and Ex-Post Regulatory Evaluation (RRA) in extrajudicial rulemaking.

This paper analyzes the role of the Public Defender's Office in structural cases pending before the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF). It seeks to understand how the Supreme Court has ruled and guided that institution's actions, given the expansion of its constitutional responsibilities and the current rise in structural litigation for the implementation of public policies. Through a descriptive study, all structural or related cases monitored by the STF up to January 1, 2025, were catalogued, focusing on the various forms of participation of the Public Defender's Office. The investigation, conducted through the examination of petitions, documents, meeting minutes, and certificates of the cases monitored, as well as other research and studies related to the topic, fosters empirical legal research, allowing for the mapping of structural actions and a deeper understanding of the Public Defender's role in this type of litigation. It also enables an assessment of whether this participation enhances the democratic legitimacy of the decision-making process and fills gaps in the so-called "Brazilian structural process." Additionally, it examines whether the Public Defender's Office is institutionally and instrumentally prepared to tackle these challenges. The main findings indicate that: i) The expansion of the Public Defender's constitutional responsibilities has laid the foundation for its broad procedural engagement, legitimizing and democratizing STF decisions instructural cases; ii) The STF has shown a tendency to ensure the participation of the Public Defender's Office in structural disputes related to public policies; iii) The Defender's role as a party, amicus curiae, or custos vulnerabilis contributes to the legitimacy of decisions, increasing the number of interested parties represented by it and enabling their effective participation in both the decision-making processand the implementation of structural rulings; iv) Despite the importance of this role, the Public Defender's Office is not present in all structural cases within its jurisdiction, and the STF has not established a binding precedent requiring its participation; v) Public Defender’s Offices face institutional and administrative limitations that hinder their full assumption of these new responsibilities. Throughout the research, additional issues emerged beyond the initial scope: i) It was found that the lack of legal or regulatory provisions on the matter within the STF affects not only the involvement of parties and stakeholders but also the very identification of structural cases; ii) The absence of uniform and objective criteria for defining and processing structural cases at the STF leads to undesirable consequences, suchas: a) lack of transparency in case processing; b) compromised evidentiary proceedings; c) risk of misclassifying cases as structural; d) increase in the number of cases without proper oversight. Recommendations: i) Amend the STF’s Internal Rules to align them with the realities of structural litigation; ii) Expand the participation of justices in classifying cases as structural by adopting a procedure similar to the General Repercussion mechanism, requiring prior deliberation by the Plenary (physical or virtual) to define structural characteristics and process structural litigation to be adjudicated.

This study assesses the legal-procedural reliability of large language models (LLMs) in drafting judicial decisions for the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) in interlocutory appeals on extraordinary remedies (ARE). Developed within the Artificial Intelligence Innovation Project at the University of Brasília, the research aligns with the Brazilian AI Strategy (EBIA), the Brazilian AI Plan (PBIA), and the STF’s institutional agenda on technology adoption. Given the widespread use of generative AI by judges, the study underscores the urgent need to establish secure parameters for its use in adjudication. Fifteen recent AREs were selected, covering a range of topics and complexities. For each case, the GPT-4o model independently generated a draft decision based solely on case records, without human intervention. The outputs were compared to the original STF decisions using four analytical axes: (i) factual and informational accuracy; (ii) adherence to jurisdictional filters and cognitive limits of AREs; (iii) structural conformity (report, reasoning, dispositive); and (iv) presence of hallucinations—defined as non-existent, imprecise, or incorrect statements or references. The findings are notable: hallucinations occurred in 80% of cases; undue engagement with the merits in 73%; non-compliance with the opening format in 73%; and improper dispositive drafting in 86.7%. Only one of the fifteen AI-generated decisions (6.7%) fully matched the human ruling, while in 20% of cases, the AI uncritically echoed the lower court's decision. The study concludes that, although LLMs can identify key facts with reasonable accuracy, their high rate of formal and substantive errors prevents their autonomous use in STF rulings. The paper recommends targeted model training for institutional demands, enhanced prompt engineering, and mandatory review by qualified professionals to validate AI-generated outputs. These empirical findings contribute to discussions on AI governance within the judiciary, indicating a path toward responsible integration between humans, technology, and the law.

This dissertation examined how the thesis established by the Brazilian Supreme Court in Extraordinary Appeal n. 1.010.606, General Repercussion Theme 786, concerning the right to be forgotten, has been applied. The thesis consists of two parts: the first, of a general nature, denies the existence of a right to be forgotten; the second, of an exceptional nature, admits its application in specific cases, upon balancing with other fundamental rights. The starting hypothesis was that the Supreme Court has confined itself to applying the first part of the thesis, without conducting an in-depth analysis of the case, favoring the freedoms of expression, press, and information, to the detriment of the protection of intimacy and privacy. The empirical research comprised the analysis of the judgment rendered in Extraordinary Appeal n. 1.010.606, as well as the qualitative analysis of fifteen appeals and nine constitutional complaints filed after the ruling, as these can ensure the application of a thesis established under the general repercussion system. The originality of the study lies in examining, based on subsequent Supreme Court decisions, the practical application of the thesis, an aspect not yet addressed in the legal literature. The results indicated that the first part of the thesis has been applied predominantly and automatically in constitutional complaints, in which freedom of the press prevailed. The second part of the thesis was applied in only two appeals; in the rest, the Court resorted to Precedents 279 and 282. The findings also suggest that lower courts face difficulties in correctly interpreting the content of the established thesis and applying it to concrete cases. In conclusion, the thesis established in Theme 786 has not fulfilled the guiding and harmonizing role expected of a thesis formulated under the general repercussion system.

This paper examines the emergence of DeepSeek as a milestone in the evolution of large language models (LLMs) and its implications for the Brazilian judiciary. It begins with an overview of the fundamental concepts of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and deep learning, as well as the role of LLMs in the current phase of generative AI. It then maps the governance proposed by the National Council of Justice — from the diagnosis of Resolution No. 332/2020 to the update by Resolution No. 615/2025, with an emphasis on transparency, risk management, data protection, and responsible use of AI — and the functionality of the Sinapses platform as a repository and audit trail for AI projects in the Judiciary. The research also describes the STF's trajectory on the topic, highlighting VICTOR, VitórIA, RAFA 2030, and, more recently, MARIA, the Court's first generative AI initiative aimed at producing drafts and summaries. Finally, it argues that the combination of computational efficiency and openness of the DeepSeek ecosystem — including the possibility of offline operation and adaptation to specific domains — creates a concrete window for the development of a legal LLM in Portuguese, under public coordination and safeguards, in line with national regulatory guidelines.

This research investigates the monitoring carried out by the Supreme Federal Court in structural proceedings, aiming to map how judicial monitoring has been conducted and the procedural instruments used by the Court. The research problem stems from the theoretical gap surrounding the lack of predetermined indicators for such monitoring by the Brazilian Supreme Court. In the first chapter, the theoretical framework was based on criticisms of judicial action in structural proceedings, the importance of the monitoring stage, and the gap corresponding to the lack of objective parameters for its conduct. A parallel was drawn with indicators present in the public policy cycle, and instruments described by legal scholars as useful for monitoring the execution of judicial decisions were listed, including: public hearings; working groups; amicus curiae briefs; situation rooms; significant commitment; procedural scheduling; atypical evidence; sanctions for non-compliance and special masters—concepts that guided the empirical approach. The second chapter details the methodology used to construct the database, justifying the choices made for its formation, and then presents the empirical findings. To this end, a qualitative, descriptive approach was adopted, utilizing bibliographical and documentary research to cross-reference the data and provide the basis for the research. The ADPF procedural class and the lawsuits listed in previous empirical research were selected, resulting in 13 lawsuits for analysis. To facilitate understanding, the data collected were divided into seven thematic blocks: general data on the lawsuits; requests; court orders prior to approval of the action plan; technical meetings and public hearings; the action plan; amici curiae briefs; and the timeframe for processing. In the third and final chapter, the findings were problematized, revealing a dichotomy in the handling of cases by the Supreme Federal Court (STF). On the one hand, the Court's efforts to evolve its application of monitoring techniques were noted, such as holding contextualization hearings in ADPF 635 and the novelty of determining significant commitment in ADPF 760. Conversely, there was no concern with basic premises that guarantee the effectiveness of the proceedings in some of the cases analyzed, as evidenced by the excessive detail of the precautionary measures granted in ADPF 976 and the absence of public hearings in ADPF 742. The empirical findings allow us to conclude that there is still no uniformity in the STF's handling of structural proceedings, requiring greater attention to the areas for improvement, described throughout the chapter, to achieve a common procedural logic that allows for greater clarity and transparency. As a result of this work, a suggested checklist of standards to be observed in the STF's handling of structural proceedings, with a focus on the judicial monitoring phase, was developed.

This dissertation investigates the linguistic and discursive implications of using artificial intelligence (AI) systems in the drafting of single-judge decisions of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF), with a focus on the construction of judicial style and discursive ethos. Grounded in French Discourse Analysis, particularly in Maingueneau’s perspective and Bakhtin’s theory of genres, the research conducts a comparative analysis between authentic decisions issued by Court justices and AI-generated decisions created from the same dataset. The corpus consists of ten human single-judge decisions and ten AI-generated decisions in criminal matters, within the context of extraordinary appeals and interlocutory appeals in extraordinary appeals. The analysis reveals structural continuities between the two types of discourse, such as the preservation of technical-legal language and basic formal organization, but also identifies significant erasures and transformations in style, especially regarding the dilution of subjective and enunciative markers characteristic of the magistrate. The results indicate that, although AI reproduces formal elements of the genre, there is a weakening of judicial discursive ethos and a reduction in enunciative singularity, which may affect the symbolic legitimacy and discursive authority of judicial decisions. Thus, the study concludes that AI should remain an auxiliary tool, under qualified human supervision, in order to preserve the discursive elements that constitute judicial.

This dissertation analyzes Allegation of Breach of Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 635, filed with the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) in 2019, as a case study on the obstacles and advances in combating police violence and racism in the state of Rio de Janeiro. The central research question is: how can ADPF 635 effectively contribute to transforming police practices structured by racism? The methodology is qualitative, based on detailed document analysis of the case records—including the initial petition, decisions, votes, public hearing transcripts, and amici curiae briefs—articulated with a critical theoretical framework encompassing structural racism, necropolitics, and strategic structural litigation. The results indicate that ADPF 635 constituted a milestone by bringing the discussion of lethal and racialized police violence to the judiciary, resulting in unprecedented measures and a final ruling that established a complex system of monitoring, data transparency, and use-of-force protocols. The participation of civil society organizations and victims of state violence was crucial for legitimizing the case and incorporating the lived reality of institutional violence. However, the study concludes that the effectiveness of the decisions is limited by repeated non-compliance by the state and a central failure of the STF: while recognizing the gravity of police lethality, the Court failed to name and confront racism as its structural core. The final ruling, which declared the cessation of the Unconstitutional State of Affairs, symbolizes this contradiction—a legal and formal advance that coexists with the persistence of an oppressive reality, revealing the profound challenges of using the law to dismantle centuries-old structures of oppression. 

The Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) has intensified the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms since the creation of the Mediation and Conciliation Center (CMC) and the Center for Consensual Conflict Resolution (NUSOL). However, the adoption of consensual methods, particularly within the scope of the centralized system of judicial review, has generated doctrinal controversies regarding their legitimacy and compatibility with the classical model of constitutional adjudication. This study examines to understand how the Brazilian Supreme Court has implemented consensual practices in the centralized judicial review system, examining to what extent such initiatives represent an innovation in relation to the traditional model of constitutional decision-making and what institutional impacts they entail. The research adopts an empirical, qualitative, and exploratory approach, based on the analysis of public data from the “Civil Settlements Panel” of NUSOL/STF and of the cases submitted to negotiation. The results indicate that the Court does not directly negotiate the constitutionality of legal norms, limiting settlements to issues such as implementation, deadlines, and specific obligations. By shifting the decision-making center toward the negotiation sphere, the Court assumes the role of a coordinating agent of institutional conduct. The empirical analysis shows that political parties are the main proponents of negotiated actions and that the use of consensual procedures remains residual, selective, and concentrated in a few chambers. Furthermore, there is a predominance of single-justice (monocratic) decisions and a lack of uniformity in defining the “interested parties” to participate in negotiations, revealing normative fragility. It is concluded that consensuality has been gradually expanding within the Court, which now exercises a coordinating function in addition to its traditional judicial role. This transformation exposes tensions between the discourse on the advantages of consensual justice and a still incipient practice, marked by asymmetrical approaches and regulatory weakness.

The study examines the interpretation given by the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) to the rules governing the statutes of limitations for compensatory and punitive claims brought by the Federal Court of Accounts (TCU) in the context of writs of mandamus. The research covers the Court’s jurisprudential developments between February 3, 2016, the date of the judgment in Extraordinary Appeal No. 669,069, which recognized the applicability of limitation periods to actions for the reparation of damages to the Public Treasury arising from civil wrongdoing, and May 31, 2025. It investigates the positions adopted by the reporting Justices and the Court’s Panels, seeking to identify shifts in legal interpretation and their impact on the TCU’s actions. The objective is to assess whether administrative oversight has been conducted in a manner that reconciles the accountability of public agents with legal certainty.

This study describes the distribution, at the first-instance level, of cases related to issues of general repercussion with modulations of effects in tax matters, processed up to December 31, 2024, as well as the Supreme Federal Court's (STF) decisional patterns in modulations in this area. The research shows that, regarding patterns, the Court usually modulated effects on the merits (taking from four to almost seven years to judge); used the publication or the date of publication of the minutes as the starting point of the effects; preserved pending actions when maintaining unconstitutional taxations; and exempted taxpayers from reimbursing the public treasury if they benefited from unconstitutional tax reductions. Furthermore, the dissertation points to a significant increase (from 30.19% to 88.41%) in the accumulated number of sample cases distributed at the first-instance level of the courts surveyed between the recognition of general repercussion and the eve of the start of the judgment of the selected issues, and indicates the correlation of this with the STF's delay in judging the paradigmatic extraordinary appeals. The study also indicates an increase in lawsuits filed when the Court declared the unconstitutionality of taxation with ex nunc effects, but left room for interpretation or a guarantee that the actions exempted from the modulation would be those filed up to a certain future date. It is suggested, for greater legal certainty, to reduce the time for judgment of paradigms in the Supreme Federal Court and to create guidelines to systematize decision-making standards and encourage clear timeframes in modulations

This dissertation examines Constitutional Claim for Breach of Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 828 and the subsequent creation of the Land Conflict Resolution Commissions as expressions of a new dialogic judicial policy for addressing land and housing disputes in Brazil. The study investigates how the Federal Supreme Court, by recognizing the structural complexity of these conflicts, inaugurated a cooperative model of institutional action grounded in mediation, inter-institutional dialogue, and the protection of the fundamental right to housing. Chapter 1 provides a systematization of the normative and theoretical foundations that structure land conflicts in Brazil, as well as the complexity inherent to this type of dispute. Chapter 2 contextualizes ADPF 828, highlighting the constitutional grounds of the decision and analyzing the judicial discourse that reveals the incorporation of dialogic and participatory categories into the Court’s reasoning. Chapter 3 develops a case study of the Banhado Community in São José dos Campos/SP, drawing on judicial decisions, prior academic works, press reports, and digital sources. This approach makes it possible to understand the institutional role of the Public Defender’s Office and the relevance of ADPF 828 as a mechanism enabling direct access to the Supreme Court for the protection of vulnerable groups. Chapter 4 examines the consolidation of the new judicial policy in light of dialogic theories and National Council of Justice Resolution No. 510/2023, which permanently regulates the creation and functioning of the Land Conflict Resolution Commissions. It also illustrates concrete mediation experiences in both Brazil and South Africa. The research concludes that ADPF 828 represents a milestone of institutional reconstruction and a transformation of the Judiciary’s role in ensuring fundamental rights. By shifting from an authoritarian model of eviction enforcement to one based on listening, participation, and cooperation among state powers and social actors, the Federal Supreme Court has advanced the transition toward a dialogic land justice, reaffirming the 1988 Constitution’s commitment to human dignity and to the social function of law.

The research analyzes the degree of judicial deference granted by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) to the decisions of federal regulatory agencies in the exercise of their technical-sectoral regulatory powers. The question posed is: is there in the case law a predisposition toward deference? In the first chapter, conceptual parameters were developed. The theoretical bases were established for defining judicial deference, understood as judicial self-restraint qualified by institutional respect for these entities. The second chapter focused on analyzing the purpose, structure, and powers of regulatory agencies, as well as the judicial control of their actions. The third and final chapter was devoted to empirical research. First, a raw database was assembled, extracted through the selection of cases in which the agencies appeared as participants in the legal-procedural relationship (pure subjective criterion), added to the judgments containing discursive elements indicating the presence or absence of deference (subjective-objective criterion). Next, this universe of cases was delimited by the following methodological cutoffs: filing between 10/5/2010 and 10/5/2024; adjudication on the merits of the main issue by a published judgment; and subject matter falling within the sectoral regulatory sphere of the regulatory agency. The combination of these criteria originated the refined database. The next step consisted of classifying the judgments into three categories: deferential, interfering, and indifferent. Judgments were considered deferential in three situations: convergence of the decisions with the agencies’ actions, convergence with the agencies’ interests, and the presence of an explicit deferential discourse. Interference corresponds to the opposite hypotheses. The indifferent decision, in turn, occurs when the dispute was resolved without any reference to the regulatory agency or its regulatory activity. The result revealed the predominance of deferential decisions. It was also found that both deference and interference did not stem from automatic agreement but were preceded by judicial oversight and accompanied by justifications for intervening or not in the regulator’s choices. Thus, the data showed that within the scope of the STF, judicial deference does not imply a relinquishment of judicial control, but rather a measured judgment of self-restraint that preserves the actions of regulatory agencies without waiving the review of legality. Deference is not automatic, as in the classic Chevron Doctrine, but seeks to balance judicial control with the decision-making autonomy and regulatory authority of the regulatory agencies.

Supplementary healthcare, a relevant sector of the market, which provides essential goods of public relevance to society, is a complex field, encompassing several players in the value chain, such as health insurance companies, healthcare service providers and consumers. This market has undergone major structural changes in recent years, with the formation of various types of collective arrangements, such as inter-organizational cooperation networks, economic groups and contractual networks. The players in supplementary healthcare can be seen as nodes interacting with each other through networks. The Theory of Nodal Governance (or Nodal Regulation) was developed to understand the contemporary regulatory phenomenon of network governance. The aim of this study is to investigate nodal regulation in supplementary healthcare, elucidating the network's component nodes, the regulatory adaptation strategies and possible future actions, with a view to minimizing the regulatory distortions of the network itself. As an illustration, two cases were selected for study, taken from the final reports of Parliamentary Commissions of Inquiry: the performance, in supplementary health, of the cooperation network known as the prosthesis mafia (Prosthesis CPIs) and the performance of the health insurance company Prevent Senior during the Covid-19 pandemic (Pandemic and Prevent Senior CPIs). It was observed that the theory of nodal governance applied to the supplementary health chain deals with issues of conflicts, captures and associations between nodes and inter-organizational cooperation networks, emphasizing the legitimacy of actions consistent with sectoral checks and balances. The behaviors reinforce an adaptive system of competition, competition and cooperation. Nodal governance theory provides a panoramic view of regulation, as it captures the dynamics of power and governance in reality, providing information on how nodes - understood as institutions that mobilize resources, mentalities and technologies to achieve management results - are governed and how they govern other nodes. However, due to the model's inherent limitations, it must be complemented with other regulatory theories in order to provide more efficient and effective governmental and non-governmental interventions to improve regulation.

This dissertation summarizes the concern resulting from a critical look at issues involving consumer law within the scope of the Superior Court of Justice in more than 20 years of professional experience in the cabinets of ministers comprising the Second Section of the Court. It starts from the revisiting of the histori-cal context that served as a scenario for the construction of Consumer Law in Brazil until the effective promulgation of the Brazilian Consumer Protection Code. It goes on to point out liberal ideological struc-tures as responsible for the exacerbation of economic values in society and for defining the role of the Ju-diciary as an instrument for inducing a consensus on these values and ideas that, ultimately, privilege the interests of the economic sectors. In the end, the research seeks to illustrate, through examples taken from the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, the intervention of the Judiciary to recover legisla-tive concessions and neutralize consumer gains. Against a background marked by the profound change in the relationship between society and economy, in which fundamental aspects of human life began to be subordinated to market relations, the functioning of the State is considered based on the analysis of its structural elements, which end up converging for the natural process of emptying the CDC. In the name of a right to freedom, political power is restricted, in order to shift economic relations to the private field. As a result, the individual is the one who must determine their economic and social relations, defending, in iso-lation, interests that are, in reality, collective or general. At the same time, with the public function re-stricted to specific areas, such as territorial security, private property and the fulfillment of contracts, the State ends up operating as a mere guarantor of private relations, creating and preserving differences and hierarchies, by simply ensuring free game of market forces. With this, it ensures the remuneration of capi-tal at the expense, including the vilification of consumer rights, in order to affirm the freedom of exploitation of ordinary citizens by the economically privileged, building a social liberality qualified by property. In this structure, the Judiciary acts to preserve the status quo and strengthen the liberal society project, some-times guaranteeing the maintenance of these structures, sometimes recovering the space eventually lost, through the legislative process, by the economic sectors. The examples taken from the STJ's jurispru-dence give concreteness to the argument, making it very clear the contradictory role played by the Judici-ary in vandalizing consumer protection structures and, on the other hand, in maintaining abuses and privi-leges.

The objective of this work is to demonstrate, even more than three decades after the promulgation of the Political Charter of our Nation (1988), the profound existence of a structural racism in our society, which is manifested by the marginalization and exclusion of a large portion od the population to equitable access to quality education and, as a result, better employment opportunities, in addition to the necessary representation in spaces of power, whose presence of black and brown people is still small, which goes against the principle of equal opportunity in John Rawls’s conception of a just and well-ordered society, as will be shown in the first part of the work. From this initial finding, we will seek to assess whether or not there is a criminal selectivity by the respective bodies responsible for criminal prosecution and to what extent this has contributed to the so-called "Unconstitutional State of Affairs" already recognized by the Supreme Court within ADPF 347/DF, addressing its historical origin, elements and historical evolution, as well as its recognition in the Brazilian reality in which, due to state inertia, especially the Executive Branch, responsible for the structure of the prison system, aggravated especially by the judicial interpretation of Law n. 11,343/2006, among other legislative changes and concrete cases that tend to aggravate this alarming situation, where there is a massive violation of fundamental rights, provided for in the Federal Constitution, as well as Law n. 7.210/1984 itself, which regulates in our country the execution of the sentence applied in a previous criminal process in which the state punitive claim was accepted. We also will address proposals for the construction of a more just and well-ordered society where, in fact and in law, the legal system is effectively and substantially applied to the whole of society, and not only to a privileged minority, adopting, among other parameters, the ideas of the philosopher John Rawls, who in his books "A Theory of Justice" and "Political Liberalism") brings arguments and ideals that, Although designed for the American reality, they have applicability in our reality. Thus, through the reading and filing of doctrinal articles, master's dissertations, books and other academic documents on the subject, as well as the concrete cases in which the institute was recognized in Colombia and Brazil, we will seek to define the concept of what is the "Unconstitutional State of Things" of the Brazilian prison system, as well as proposing some measures to be implemented within the scope of the Judiciary with the scope of at least mitigating this framework with a view to the realization of the fundamental right regarding the prohibition of cruel penalties, the principle of the dignity of the human person, as well as the individualization of the penalty, among others provided for at the level of infra constitutional legislation. Moreover, this work will have as its main objective to propose some measures that the Federal Supreme Court, on the occasion of the judgment of the merits of ADPF n. 347, may determine to the other instances of the Judiciary, as well as to the other Powers, with a view to the deconstruction of what is characterized as a generalized framework of violation of the most salutary rights and guarantees guaranteed to those who, much more than deprived of their liberty in response to the commission of a crime, they must also deal with the deprivation of other rights that, although provided for in the legal system, are not effectively observed by the State, as well as propose ideas with the scope of providing the creation of a society that will be marked by equal access to what John Rawls calls "primary goods", which will necessarily impact on the reduction of violence and crimes committed within Brazilian society and, in this way, avoid the continuation of a policy of mass incarceration of the most economically vulnerable population.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in the Brazilian Judiciary is an expanding reality. Considering the need to adhere to parameters for the ethical development and use of AI, the National Council of Justice issued Resolution n. 332/2020. This research aims to evaluate the governance strategies outlined in said normative act, its practical application, as well as other mechanisms capable of ensuring the ethical use of technology and mitigating the associated risks, especially the establishment of AI ethics committees in the courts, aimed at supporting future institutional initiatives. To this end, in the first chapter, the roles played by regulation, ethics, and governance and their intersection in controlling risks related to technology use are analyzed. In the second chapter, the risks of AI use in the Judiciary and the relevant regulations are examined, including the analysis of international documents such as the European Ethical Charter on the use of AI in judicial systems and their environment, along with a critical examination of the governance instruments provided for in Resolution CNJ No. 332/2020. In the third chapter, the creation of AI ethics committees is evaluated as a mechanism to address the complexity of the development cycle of AI projects and the ethical issues inherent in their implementation in the sensitive context of the Judiciary. After analyzing different formats of AI ethics committees, a proposal is presented for the creation not only of AI ethics committees within each court but also of a national network of AI ethics committees within the Judiciary, a national AI ethics committee, and a national AI ethics advisory council, with details on their structure, composition, objectives, and attributions. In the conclusion, the suggestions for improving the governance strategies of AI use in the Judiciary highlighted throughout the study are compiled.

The dissertation addresses the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal context, focusing on the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), investigating its ability to improve the quality of judicial decisions, considering the brazilian precedent system. Through bibliographic review, document analysis and the deductive method, the concept of AI and its categories are explored, such as machine learning, deep learning and natural language processing. Next, the correlation between AI, law and the Judiciary is discussed, highlighting the initiatives and regulations on the subject within the scope of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) and the AI projects in production and development at the STJ, such as the Sócrates System and the Athos Platform. Furthermore, the legal traditions of common law and civil law, Dworkin's Theory of Law as Integrity, the crisis of the Brazilian Judiciary and judicial decision-making, the evolution of jurisprudential law in Brazil and the structuring of the precedent system in the Civil Procedure Code of 2015 (CPC/2015) are examined. The criticisms and risks of using AI in the decision-making process are also presented, including algorithmic biases, technological syllogism and opacity. Finally, the work concludes that artificial intelligence can contribute to the quality of judicial decisions, from the perspective of stability, coherence and integrity defined in CPC/2015, as long as ethical and responsibility requirements are observed.

This dissertation addresses the debates that preceded the drafting of The Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (MCI) and analyzes the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), with the aim of understanding how the STJ interpreted, in the last ten years, the themes covered in the first law of the general regulatory framework for the internet in Brazil. The first chapter presents general aspects about internet regulation and governance, focusing on the debate that took place in the United States of America (USA), following the popularization of the internet, and its influence on the national debate, which included public hearings in the National Congress. The dilemmas raised by the literature after the publication of the MCI are also presented. The second chapter details the methodology, which resulted in the qualitative analysis of 206 judgments published from April 23, 2014, the date of promulgation of the MCI, as well as the initial classification of subjects into thematic blocks. The first results are also shown, with a presentation of the macro view of the STJ's jurisprudence. The third chapter presents the refinement of results in two major areas, private and criminal, with details of the most recurring issues in the thematic blocks. The fourth chapter consists of a discussion of a paradigmatic case that dealt with the civil liability of an access provider for harmful content inserted by a third party on a social network. Jurisprudence entered the themes discussed in the American debate, sometimes indirectly and, more presently, in the themes discussed in the debates of the National Congress. Finally, the regulatory role of the STJ proved to be remarkable, going into details that only concrete cases could bring, so that the jurisprudence became complementary to the regulations introduced by the MCI.

The objective of this research is to understand the theoretical contributions related to the issue of excessive time in preventive detention and the judgment technique devised by supranational courts and adopted by the Brazilian justice system; identify the decision-making standards within the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice, assess whether they are coherent with the three criteria technique and whether they are sufficient to limit subjectivity in the judgment; present a proposal to improve the examination technique based on evidence and legal alternatives to repair illegal excess, based on the principle of fraternity. The data examined were collected from the Citizenship Court's information systems through two applications and compared with the three criteria technique, devised by the European Court of Human Rights. It was found that examination standards are insufficient to guide judgments, as well as the absence of a clear method for verifying excessive time in criminal proceedings. In the end, the study presents a proposal to improve the way in which prison terms are examined, based on the system of precedents, and the possibility of applying remedial measures for unjustified excess, as a way of valuing the fraternal character that guides the Brazilian State.

This dissertation explores the relationship between tax policy and the promotion of fraternity and tax justice in Brazil, focusing specifically on protecting the existential minimum and adhering to the principle of the ability to pay. Using the inductive method, the research was developed through an extensive bibliographic review, including books, magazines, journals, and journalistic material, in addition to a thorough analysis of relevant legislation and jurisprudence. The work is based on the theoretical framework proposed by Carlos Augusto Alcântara Machado, who recognizes fraternity as an essential legal category, and the studies of Reynaldo Soares da Fonseca, who views fraternity as a fundamental constitutional principle for the justice system. Furthermore, the research is grounded in John Rawls's theory of justice, exploring its applicability in structuring a tax system that is both just and socially effective. The findings indicate an urgent need for deeper reforms that ensure the non-taxation of the existential minimum and respect the citizens' ability to pay. Therefore, it is proposed that the state's tax collection activities be reformed not only to sustain its expenditures on essential public policies but also to promote fairer income distribution and contribute to reducing social inequalities. This study contributes to the academic debate by highlighting the importance of integrating principles of fraternity and social justice into tax policies, aiming to develop a society that is freer, fairer, and more solidary, in accordance with the objectives of the Federal Constitution of Brazil of 1988.

The fact that at some point in their existence the citizen will need to resort to the Judiciary to obtain a solution to his demand becomes increasingly evident, especially when it comes to defending his rights to health and life. It turns out that, despite the constitucional provision for safeguarding these guarantees, such defense may prove to be ineffective, given the instrument made available in national procedural law for this purpose, and, more specifically, when the demand concerns authorization for the supply of medicine not yet regulated by ANVISA through precautionary measures, currently provided for in subjective legislation as urgent protections by the STJ. In this dissertation, we will briefly analyze the evolution of the old precautionary measures to the current urgent protections in the Code of Civil Procedure, we will verify the genesis and reason for being of the Regulatory Agencies and, after a case by case exposition of precedents within the scope of the STJ, we will verify whether under the pantheon of provide jurisdiction more quickly, through a summarized procedure – in compliance with the inescapable principle of access to justice -, the performance of the Infraconstitutional Superior Court pays homage to the principle of the Regulatory State of reserving technical judgment. The structural division will be through chapters distributed as follows: . Chapter 1 – considerations about precautionary measures from their genesis in Civil Procedural Law to the emergency protections in current legislation, with an approach to the satisfactory nature of some of them; . Chapter 2 – we will deal with Regulatory Agencies from their inception mirrored in the Local Authorities, we will make considerations about the technical judgment of regulatory entities in relation to the political judgment of the regulatory State and we will conclude with a specific approach on the National Health Surveillance Agency-ANVISA, its creation, competence and the drug regulation procedure adopted by it; . Chapter 3 – we will address the case series selected within the scope of the decisions handed down by the Superior Court of Justice regarding the marketing/supply of medicines not yet regulated by ANVISA. . Chapter 4 – we will make a brief comparison between the competence of ANVISA and the Superior Court of Justice, in view of their legally defined attributions; . Chapter 5 – conclusion. We will conclude the study in the sense of the need for, despite the judging body playing its role always attentive to the principle of indefeasibility of jurisdiction, the essentiality of paying due homage to the technical judgment, as the essence of the regulatory body, is indispensable.

A multiplicity of cases have reached the STJ, in which there are different solutions given by the ordinary courts to the same question of criminal law, often mitigating the principle of strict legality, which enjoys the status of a fundamental guarantee in a democratic state. So how has the STJ interpreted the principle of legality as applied to criminal law in its precedent-setting decisions? Has the Court of Citizenship relativized the principle of legality? Does it use only the principle of legality or also methods of interpretation, criminal dogmatics, methodological aspects of the descriptive sciences and/or discourses characterized by induction, dialectics and logic to support its decisions qualified as precedents? In order to answer the problem of this research, which will be conducted empirically, it will be based on qualified precedents handed down by the Third Section of the STJ, which will be analyzed taking into account the conception of the principle of legality in the civil law tradition, as well as the insertion in the Brazilian legal system of the institute of stare decisis, which comes from the Norman common law culture. The dissertation is divided into three chapters, in addition to the introduction and conclusion, and evolves from an abstract perspective to a concrete one. In the first and second chapters, the main concepts of the research will be problematized, such as the principle of legality and its fallibility in the face of the complexities caused by the occurrence of new social phenomena. Later, in the second chapter, the main characteristics of common law culture will be discussed, especially stare decisis, the definition of which is being shaped and incorporated into the Brazilian legal system. Finally, the strategies used to arrive at the refined base, made up of 26 judgments handed down under the system of repetitive special appeals in the Third Section of the STJ, will be detailed. We will then proceed to diagnose the stance of the STJ, after examining the decisions referred to, which will be done in four blocks, in which the empirical findings reveal the existence of decision-making techniques and strategies that indicate a direction in terms of reasoning.

Understanding how Brazilians, who work in cabotage navigation, historically influenced the preservation of national security, by protecting maritime traffic and marine biodiversity, is the central point of this work. In view of this objective, the proposal presented is to identify which protective measures, through regulatory arrangements mediated with port authorities, public administration, judiciary, regulated and users, can be adopted by the regulatory agency of Brazilian waterway transport - ANTAQ, for the increase in training, qualification and number of Brazilian seafarer crew

The National Council of Justice (CNJ) was established as a control body of the Judiciary, with the competence to oversee the administrative and financial performance of courts and the fulfillment of judges' duties. Composed of fifteen members with fixed terms, the CNJ has financial, administrative, functional, and decision-making autonomy, making it a regulatory body for judicial activities. One of the ways to exercise this regulation is through the issuance of resolutions, which have been recognized by the Supreme Court as primary normative acts, i.e., with the force of law. Since its inception, the CNJ has issued hundreds of resolutions. Given the importance of these norms, the research problem arises: what does the CNJ regulate? The general objective of this study was to map the normative activity of the National Council of Justice through an analysis of all resolutions issued by the body from 2005 to 2023. The quantities of resolutions issued and revised over time, the themes addressed by the CNJ, the number of resolutions with and without efficacy, and those subject to Supreme Court review were traced. The resolutions were also analyzed and classified according to a structured analysis model divided into 3 broad areas and 16 subfunctions, providing an overview of the CNJ's activities. It was found that, although most normative acts are focused on judicial administration, the CNJ also establishes rules and procedures related to the adjudication of cases, regulating not only the means but also the ends of judicial activity. A significant activity in the area of public policies was identified, promoting measures in favor of vulnerable and minority groups, evidencing a social responsibility agenda. Norms that dialogue with Sunshine regulation were also identified, notably benchmarking and "name and shame," through policies of rewarding good practices and disclosing results, highlighting the most and least efficient courts.

Faced with a significant increase in mass and repetitive demands that overwhelm the judicial system, the management of the jurisdictional function has taken on an increasingly prominent role in debates concerning mass issues, gaining more responsibilities in national legislation as evidenced by the provisions established in the 2015 Brazilian Civil Procedure Code (CPC) related to the restructuring of Extraordinary and Special Repetitive Appeals. One proposed solution was the implementation of a microsystem for resolving repetitive cases within the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. This measure aims to provide greater procedural efficiency and legal certainty, simultaneously ensuring the use of references to previous judgments in similar cases. While research indicates a growing consolidation of a system of qualified pronouncements stemming from the 2015 CPC, there is a heightened doctrinal concern with the determination and clarity of the legal question from the outset, delving into the concept of stare decisis and its prospective binding effects. However, little is known about how to operationalize the selection of legal theses capable of being submitted to the position of controversy — a crucial internal stage within the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). Therefore, it seems reasonable to define criteria for optimizing the selection of theses in the phase preceding the admission to the Precedent and Collective Actions Management Commission (COGEPAC). The research aims to analyze the justifications for controversies that did not succeed. The hypothesis was that the service of identifying and selecting cases suitable for designation as Representative Appeals of Controversy (RRCs) was rejected, mostly at the admission stage or discarded on the pretext of not having matured within the Court. To this end, there was a documentary analysis of 284 canceled controversies available as public information on the STJ's website. In conclusion, criteria are outlined as guiding principles for selecting the original process from which the incident is initiated.

According to the Federal Constitution, private institutions may participate in a complementary way in the Unified Health System (SUS), according to criteria and values defined by the Administration. The contractualization of these services occurs through public accreditation, so far without an official definition of a regulatory model to regulate the State's relationship with these providers. The discretionary type of price cap regulation appears to be an appropriate model for formalizing the State's pricing practice in complementary health, especially due to the periodic price review rule, promotion of increased service efficiency with cost reduction and improvement of service quality, in accordance with the principle of public interest.

The present work proposed the study of habeas corpus and its aptitude for the formation of qualified precedents in the scope of the Superior Court of Justice, in view of the protagonism assumed by the institute in recent years; the analysis of the compatibility of criminal procedural principles with the theory of precedents through a renewed focus on the law itself and the conception of legal text and norm; in addition to seeking answers about the feasibility of implementation of a model of qualified precedents in the scope of Brazilian criminal proceedings; and the sufficiency of the provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure on the subject, in addition to making a regulatory proposal for a possible habeas corpus law and for the normative structuring of a theory of precedents consistent with the Brazilian criminal procedural reality. The methodology employed included the analysis of data from the numbers of the Brazilian Justice prepared by official bodies that demonstrated the increase in criminal litigation and the need to implement mechanisms to improve the judicial provision giving legal certainty and rationality to the system.

This research endeavor offers an enriched understanding of the discourse on the apparent absence of objective legal standards for determining base penalties. The study commences with an investigation of penal intervention models, addressing their multifaceted nature and potential future developments. The constitutional role of the Superior Court of Justice, which is to standardize the interpretation and application of infraconstitutional federal laws, is scrutinized in the context of the hurdles it faces in carrying out its nomophylactic function – most notably, the overwhelming number of demands. Findings derived from this research, when analyzed alongside the referenced doctrines, legal precedents, and jurisprudence, accentuate the pressing need to institute constraints on judicial discretion. This not only ensures the judge's autonomy in individualizing the penalty but also provides a reasonable level of predictability concerning the sanction. In this dynamic landscape, the instrumental role of the Superior Court of Justice in guiding the trajectory of criminal public policy becomes discernible, particularly with respect to defining robust guidelines for penalty individualization.

The objective of this dissertation is to describe the health regulatory system of the SUS and the ICU beds in the Federal District, as well as the judicialization of health to compare them. The regulatory system was analyzed from the historical context, the legal-normative structure with emphasis on relevant concepts. The CRDF received special treatment, as it is part of the regulation of access to care, as a fundamental element of efficient management in health care. On the other hand, judicialization was treated as an epidemiological phenomenon and its effects on the structure of regulation. There is interference in resource allocation, government planning, budgeting, and risks for the allocation of the beds themselves. Considering the need for system improvements, the CNJ established new guidelines, highlighting the National Health Forum, the creation of Nat-Jus and Statements, already from a perspective of evolution towards qualified judicialization. The Judiciary has the responsibility to construct, together with the Ministry of Health, a common space for dialogic conversations and the adoption of integrative solutions and inter-institutional measures, for a more useful, intelligent, and effective modeling.

The purpose of this dissertation is to verify the existence of elements of the theory of responsive regulation in legislation and compliance models in tax matters, including at the international level. Initially, it is the system of inducing norms, highlighting the extrafiscal phenomenon, especially its concept and characteristics, distinguishing it from taxation, with emphasis on taxes that are instituted for this special purpose. It is intended to demonstrate that the institution of the tax has as a rule, the collection of revenues, aiming to fund the state machine, the provision of public services, etc. However, the tax rule may establish purposes or consequences other than the collection, such as preservation of public health (e.g. tobacco taxation), heating of the national economy (e.g. zero IOF rate during the COVID19 pandemic), among others. Next, the regulation is analyzed, with brief considerations about the formation of the Regulatory State. The main aspects of Risk-Based Regulation and the Theory of Responsive Regulation are highlighted, especially those that are contextualized with the regulatory function of the tax. The last part of the work aims to demonstrate the benefits arising from the insertion of elements of responsive regulation in the tax and customs systems. In line with what Valerie Braithwaite teaches, taxation with responsive aspects means influencing the commitment to pay taxes through respectful treatment, bringing the regulator closer together (e.g. ATO, NZIR, RFB) of the community. In this scenario, the relevance of incentives, especially intrinsic ones, is highlighted, since it is traditionally assumed that the taxpayer will fulfill his regulatory obligations so as not to be subject to the sanctioning effects provided for in the legislation (extrinsic coercion). The research deepens the good experiences achieved at an international level, as well as the existing efforts in Brazil to formulate compliance models based on responsive aspects, in tax and customs matters, including representation through pyramids.

Law nº. 14,193, enacted on August 6, 2021, established the Anonymous Football Company and provided for rules regarding its formation, governance, control, transparency, financing methods for football activities, treatment of liabilities of sports entities, and specific tax regime. Additionally, it amended Laws nº. 9,615 of March 24, 1998 (known as the "Pelé Law" or "Free Transfer Law") and nº. 10,406 of January 10, 2002 (Civil Code). This dissertation aims to analyze the norm from the perspective of regulation through corporate instruments (RCI), a technique characterized by the use of corporate law instruments, such as the corporate type S.A. for regulatory purposes. Additionally, a case study involving the impacts of the norm on Cruzeiro Esporte Clube - SAF will be conducted. The study seeks to understand the effects of regulation on the optional process of conversion of sports clubs that choose to transform into SAFs, and their consequences in the legal, financial, and organizational spheres. In the case study, a comparative analysis of the legal models before and after the transformation will be carried out, examining the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the parties involved, such as shareholders, fans, and the institution itself. The research begins with a historical context and legal foundation for the transformation of civil associations into SAFs, highlighting the objectives and foundations of regulation in this context. Furthermore, the financial impacts of the change are investigated, considering the peculiarities and concepts surrounding the corporate type "Sociedade Anônima" in relation to civil law associations, with emphasis on the technique of Regulation through Corporate Instruments (RCI), notably in aspects such as professional management, resource acquisition, investments, indebtedness, financial transparency, and economic sustainability of the Club. In parallel, the effects of regulation on the management and corporate governance of these SAFs are analyzed, addressing issues such as professionalization of management, decision-making, accountability, and transparency in resource administration. The challenges and opportunities that permeate Cruzeiro Esporte Clube after its transformation into an SAF are discussed, considering aspects such as compliance with legal obligations, seeking investors, developing sustainability strategies, and strengthening the brand. Through qualitative analysis and an interdisciplinary approach, this dissertation contributes to the understanding of the impacts of Law nº. 14.193/2021 in the context of regulation through corporate instruments, providing relevant insights for the field of regulatory law, sports management, and corporate governance in football.

In this dissertation, we start from a theoretical foundation related to Legal Pragmatism to investigate the possible presence of its constituent postulates in a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice. The selected case for examination represents a precedent of rare novelty since, upon consultation on the STJ website, it is evident that there has never been a collective habeas corpus petition with similar factual configurations. The judgment under study, in fact, broke with the traditional understanding that the writ exclusively protected the freedom of a certain and determined individual. Goals: by combining the pragmatist methodology with legal practice, we aim to shed some light on this American school of thought and the application of its theoretical framework in the field of law. Methodology: to achieve this purpose, we rely on a review of bibliographic sources and relevant legislation, as well as an examination of the documents in Habeas Corpus n. 435.934/RJ. Based on these scrutinies, we investigate whether, from the perspective of Legal Pragmatism, the collective writ performs a useful and promising function in the Brazilian legal system, especially when utilized to effectively and comprehensively promote social well-being, particularly by safeguarding the fundamental right to the inviolability of the domicile of inhabitants of underserved communities in the national territory. We also examine whether there are points of intersection between the judicial decisions of the Sixth Chamber of the STJ and the pragmatist postulates concerning consequentialism and antifoundationalism. Similarly, due to the broad discretion characteristic of pragmatist-oriented judicial decisions, which are not irrevocably bound by positive norms or judicial precedents, we evaluate in this study whether the jurisprudence of the STJ has suffered significant restriction as a result of adopting overriding, an innovative hermeneutic interpretation technique, in the admission of habeas corpus petitions with collective demands. We analyze whether the legal concepts and norms have served the society's aspirations, moving away from aprioristic syllogism and confronting the factual and probative context gathered in the records since, as advocated by the pragmatist legal thought, the meaning of normative precepts depends not only on the formal and semantic properties of linguistic constructions but also on the peculiarities of the case and the interpreter's accumulated experiences. Conclusion: finally, we compare whether there has been a valorization of the judgment under study as a relevant precedent of the Superior Court of Justice, in its social and inclusive role, through its capacity to effectively protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of the social groups most in need.

The Reclamation action is a tool that incites the debate since its jurisprudential emergence in Brazilian law. Its evolution in the legal system has always faced difficulties, from the definition of its legal nature to the delimitation of its object of protection. But its path has always been guided by a broader objective: the maintenance of the constitutional order, guaranteeing legal certainty. From the validity of the CPC/2015, there was a paradigm shift in the way of interpreting the law, which started to rely on a different judgment technique: binding precedents. In this sense, the legal debates on the action were increased, seeking to understand how its relationship with precedents is established. Based on this premise, the present research aimed to understand the function of the claim and its role in this Brazilian precedent system, based on the bibliographic review, especially the work of Marcelo Navarro Ribeiro Dantas on the reclamation, in comparison with the theory of precedents, but not only as it is seen in its common law system, but also its reception by national doctrine. The research resulted in interesting findings about the importance of the claim as an action of the national constitutional jurisdiction, and that it is necessary in the Brazilian legal system, playing a role of guarantor of rights, with a hermeneutic function that stands out even more with the application of precedents binding. There are challenges to be overcome, such as the functional incorporation of precedents, but the reclamation continues to be an action of great value in the interpretation and application of law.

The emergence of digital currencies (cryptocurrencies), both through the spontaneous creation of the market, and by means of the formulation by central bank technocrats, have contributed to the formation of new practical conditions that need to be addressed by contemporary jurists. To these recent trends may be added the development of blockchain technology and new horizons for macroeconomic policies stemming from the potential adoption of central bank digital currencies (CBDC). Although a number of authors working in separate fields have begun exploring each of these topics from different angles, the description of broad issues that constitute more pervasive challenges to contemporary law practice is still unclear in relevant literature. The present paper aims to contribute in outlining what may be perceived as more general challenges crosscutting different fields of institutional and technological innovation. In view of this objective, the paper exposes the differences between two main conceptions of money discussed by economists and other scholars in their effort to establish a theory from which other concepts are derived. The paper also describes the dynamic relationships that have connected the “code of law”, which belongs to the traditional legal system, and the “computational code as law”, which has emerged from the rules stipulated by developers of technological applications in blockchain-based and other information technology networks. Finally, the paper discusses the potential benefits and harms associated with the possible adoption of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and their implications for the “financialization” of the economy. The consideration of several of the threads of discussions on the topics addressed in the paper has offered the opportunity to envision what the paper describes as broad legal challenges related to contrasting general governance patterns, characterized as “Governance Pattern with Institutional Insularities” and “Governance Pattern of Democratic Institutional Integration”.