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.

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.

The present academic work examines the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in the judgment of habeas corpus petitions filed without legal representation and the performance of the state Public Defender's Office (DPE), an institution constitutionally designed to ensure effective access to the justice system for vulnerable citizens, in the filing of habeas corpus in the Court. The objective is to assess the relevance of the institutional role of the state defense body and its strategic performance in the STJ with the aim of ensuring a fair process, guided by the constitutional principles of due process, defense, and adversarial proceedings, in harmony with the principles of human dignity. To address these inquiries, decisions handed down in the habeas corpus covering three years by the Presidency and the Fifth and Sixth Panels were analyzed. For the treatment of the research object, the work is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, the concept and evolution of access to justice was constructed. In the second chapter, the role of the Public Defender's Office as an instrument of access to justice was detailed, outlining its institutional strengthening and its adaptation to the new concept of access to justice, more comprehensive and inclusive, encompassing awareness of citizenship rights and social integration. In addition, the hypotheses of procedural vulnerabilities were analyzed. In the third and final chapter, the impact of the use of defensive jurisprudence in habeas corpus cases in the STJ without legal representation was discussed. The importance of the state Public Defender's Office was highlighted as a way of guaranteeing access to the fair process in the judgment of habeas corpus by the Court. Finally, a statistical analysis of the STJ's decisions on habeas corpus without legal representation and the performance of the DPE in the petitions filed in the Court was demonstrated.

This research examines the applicability of the Principle of Fraternity in judicial decisions at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in cases of house arrest in Brazil. The primary objective is to investigate how the principle of fraternity influences judicial decisions related to house arrest, with specific goals aimed at understanding the historical and legal evolution of this principle and its application in the Brazilian legal system, particularly in the context of house arrest. The methodology employed is mixed-methods, based on data collection from the STJ and theoretical investigation. The research begins with the contextualization of principles in the legal order, focusing on the foundations of legal and constitutional principles, and progresses to exploring the principle of fraternity in the legal context, analyzing its historical origins and evolution, as well as its implementation in the Brazilian legal system. Furthermore, it examines the characterization of house arrest, defining it legally and exploring its evolution in Brazil. The study of house arrest cases at the STJ is conducted from the perspective of the principle of fraternity, seeking to understand how it impacts judicial decisions. The conclusion synthesizes the main findings and suggests directions for future research, emphasizing the relevance of the study for understanding the applicability of legal principles, especially that of fraternity, in judicial decisions within the Brazilian context.

This research focuses on victims, especially those who suffered attacks related to heinous crimes of property nature, as well as public policies to support this social segment, which aim, mainly, to reduce the various processes of victimization. To this end, a contextual overview and the related science, victimology, will be made, addressing the evolution of the victim's participation in criminal prosecution, from the era of protagonism, through its neutralization, to the present day, characterized by its rediscovery. It is proposed to expose the protection, prevention, assistance, reparation and restoration measures for victims, as well as list the rights achieved, both those recognized internationally and those provided for by brazilian laws. A presentation will be made of all the types of crimes that are the subject of the research, including the heinous crimes of robbery, extortion, extortion through kidnapping and the controversial hypothesis of theft, highlighting the Law no. 8,072/1990 changes, notably made by the Laws 13,654/2018 and 13,964/2019 (Anti-Crime Package), important for the assessment of protected legal assets. In addition to the presentation of general characteristics regarding Public Policies, those of relevance to the matter will be listed, with emphasis on those applied by the Ministério da Justiça e Segurança Pública, the Ministério dos Direitos Humanos e Cidadania, the Conselho Nacional do Ministério Público, and the Conselho Nacional de Justiça; as well notes on Bill 3890/2020, which establishes the Victim Defense Statute. Finally, a special referral will be made to Restorative Justice, with the purpose of demonstrating the need for greater coverage of the institute and the compatibility of applying its techniques to victims of the serious crimes described in this presentation.

Law n. 13.655/2018 added articles 20 to 30 to the Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law (Decree-Law n. 4.657/1942), which deal with legal security and efficiency in the creation and application of public law, as stated in the title of the aforementioned normative text. This is the institute of consequentialism, the result of which is its dissemination throughout the legal system, given the status of a rule of superlaw conferred on the LINDB. In the present work, we intended to establish the causes of this legislative innovation through a historical outline of the Theory of Law and Administrative Law. Afterwards, an attempt was made to assess the harmony between the purposes identified by the legislator for the enactment of Law n. 13.655/2018 and the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice. It was noticed, through the analysis of the rulings, that the Superior Court acted out of step with the aforementioned parameters, because the approach adopted in most of the decisions analyzed is at odds with the purposes set out in Law n. 13.655/2018 and the corresponding bill – Bill n. 349/2015, of the Federal Senate. In the end, it was concluded that it is essential for the fulfillment of these purposes to verify, in the specific case, the joint the presence of four assumptions related to the procedural dispute. Thus, only in the face of these filters, it is believed that the objectives pointed out as the cause for this legislative innovation will be observed.

The dissertation analyzes the practice of nepotism from different perspectives. As a social-historical phenomenon, nepotism is ancestrally based on the idea that, even in the public sphere, certain people can enjoy privileges not available to the general population, simply because they were born into a particular family, clan or tribe. As a legal phenomenon, nepotism in the Brazilian public administration has been more combated since the 1988 Constitution. It is totally incompatible with a state whose foundations are the principles of republicanism, democracy, equality, impersonality and administrative morality to allow confusion between the public and private spheres, as well as to allow its agents to use the state power and force conferred on them provisionally by the laws of the Republic to their own advantage. This perspective led the Federal Supreme Court to recognize that the ban on nepotism has constitutional status and is therefore self-applicable, making unnecessary the intervention of the ordinary legislator. Since extrajudicial offices are part of the broad concept of public administration, they are also subject to the ban on nepotism. Based on the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court, this dissertatiton adopts the position that any act of nepotism must be assessed according to the principle of tempus regit actum, presupposing the existence of a public agent in activity who, directly or indirectly, or through a situation of subordination, is incompatible for their spouse, partner or relative in a direct, collateral or affinity line up to the third degree to be appointed, designated or contracted within the scope of the Public Administration in general. Therefore, the idea of late or posthumous nepotism is inadmissible. Since extrajudicial services are part of the broad concept of Public Administration, they are also subject to the prohibition against nepotism. Along these lines of thought, it is argued that for the purposes of characterizing nepotism, the existence of a marital or kinship relationship between the oldest substitute for the position declared vacant with the former delegate is irrelevant, since this does not integrate the concept of agent. public causing the incompatibility.

The work investigates the position of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in the analysis of public policies to face the Covid-19 pandemic that were judicialized, considering the special moment of crisis and the peculiar brazilian context, marked by the Federal Constitution of 1988, with the objective of verifying whether and to what extent the Court is intrusive, determining the correction of the route initially traced by the national Executive Powers, or self-contained, safeguarding a space of political choices for public managers. To answer this question, a census diagnosis of 303 decisions of the Court was carried out, applying the variables 'deference for the speech', 'deference for the result' and 'deference for the breadth of control', forged by Jordão and Cabral Junior in a work of 2018, which was configured as the theoretical-methodological framework of the present research. For the treatment of the research object, the work is divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, the theoretical bases on deference, activism, self-restraint, public policies and crisis jurisprudence were launched, concepts that supported the empirical approach. In the second chapter, the methodological focus is detailed, justifying the choices that led to the structuring of the database. In the third and last chapter, the empirical findings were problematized, revealing the existence of decision-making techniques and strategies, such as the instrumentalization of procedural obstacles and the majority judgment for monocratic decisions. It also demonstrates the impact of administrative procedures on judicial deference and launches perspectives and theoretical suggestions both for carrying out research on the doctrine of deference in Superior Courts, and for informed and rational judicial review of political choices, agreeing it is known that the decision-making practice of the STJ regarding public policies to combat Covid-19 can be classified as moderate deference.

This study aims to explore the profile of incarcerated women, focusing specifically on pregnant women and mothers of dependent children, and analyze the response of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in handling their requests for release and house arrest during the COVID-19 pandemic. By examining the legislative and jurisprudential history, conducting empirical research, and amplifying the voices of women involved in this struggle, this study seeks to unveil the STJ's performance and approach concerning these requests. The investigation reveals a concerning resistance by the STJ in granting release to mothers and pregnant women, as it fails to comply strictly with the principles outlined in key legal and jurisprudential documents, including the "Bangkok Rules," collective HC n. 143.641/SP of the STF, art. 318-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Recommendation n. 62 of March 17, 2020, of the CNJ. The study exposes the persistence of gender stereotypes that continue to influence the analyzed decisions, even in the midst of the global health crisis. These stereotypes perpetuate the notion of deviant motherhood and subject women involved in criminal activity to a dual judgment, exacerbating the disproportionate harm they face, particularly in the context of the so-called war on drugs, where drug trafficking is a primary focus of this research.

The research problem of this master's thesis consists in investigating whether the principle of fraternity has applicability within the scope of relations between the State Powers, and, with or without room for this principled incidence, what are the consequences for the exercise of state economic regulation. As a hypothesis, we understand that harmony among powers will not be obtained by the free exercise of equal powers (binomial "freedom and equality"), but in a context of fraternal constitutionalism, in which independence is performed from the perspective of the ethics of otherness ( fraternity). In this sense, we seek to find fraternal ethics in the exercise of state power, in the dialogical understanding of a functional communitarian exercise of State Powers. In order to prove the hypothesis proposed for the research problem, this dissertation will have three distinct parts: (a) it will present the classic formulation of the principle of separation of powers, getting its basic assumptions of applicability and already demonstrating in them the presence of an idea of alterity; (b) the current insertion of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers in fraternal constitutionalism; (c) the consequences of the incidence of the principle of fraternity in the context of relations between State Powers for the exercise of economic regulation power. Within our itinerary, we will start from the classic demonstration of the separation of powers, identifying in it the presence of a fraternal ideology, especially in the communitarian exercise of functional prerogatives between the powers. In a second moment, we will demonstrate that there is a need for the powers (or functions) of the State to exercise their prerogatives in a fraternal environment, especially when the practice of a typical function directly and drastically affects the typical functions of another power. In this context, we will give an example involving the fiscal health of the Brazilian State, and the risk that paradigmatic judicial processes have represented for the execution and construction of public policies by the Executive and Legislative powers. Finally, in the third chapter, within the regulatory power of the State, we will find in the principle (or in the exercise) of deference an example that seems to us very characteristic of a fraternal ambience for the principle of separation of powers. In the end, we will defend the hypothesis that the exercise of state functions needs to be developed in an environment informed by the principle of fraternity, and regulatory technical issues are shown as a positive example in the context of this fraternal constitutionalism, within which the classic understanding of separation of powers is reread.

This dissertation provides a comprehensive overview of the functioning of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), with a particular focus on elucidating the procedural path of the Special Appeal within the Court. Additionally, delves into discussions concerning the Judgment of Conformity, Judgment of Admissibility, and Judgment of Merit of the Special Appeal, encompassing a detailed enumeration and explanation of the admissibility requirements for both the Special Appeal and the Appeal, their purpose, and an examination of the so-called "defensive jurisprudence." The work also presents pertinent statistics reflecting the admissibility judgments carried out by the STJ, within the framework of the "standard jurisprudence" applied by the STJ's Presidency, with the assistance of the Office of Admissibility, Repetitive Appeals, and Relevance of the Presidency – ARP. This study investigates the rationality in the construction of the appeals' admissibility and how the STJ fits within the apex court context. Furthermore, it discusses the concepts of "public" and "private" supreme courts and the system of mixed jurisdiction, resulting from the fusion of civil law and common law, and how this may help the STJ to construct an "Ethics of Requirements," based on the Precedents Ethics proposed by Professor Marinoni, along with the development of a new theoretical paradigm of society's expectation of justice to be delivered by the STJ. Finally, the research's findings and conclusions are presented, addressing the research question: are admissibility requirements heroes or villains?

This work examines the recent trend towards “monocratization” of the Brazilian constitutional jurisdiction, a phenomenon that has been developing in parallel with the consolidation of the institutional role of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), after the re-democratization enshrined in the 1988 Constitution. is to investigate and discuss the phenomena called “monocratization” and “minicracy”. It appears that the number of collegiate decisions is decreasing, to the detriment of the ever-increasing increase in monocratic decisions. It asks, above all, what role to be played by the jurisdictional power in the paradigm of the Democratic State of Law, considering deliberative democracy as an important basis for discussion and deliberation in the decision-making process, and how this fragmentation of the Court has made constitutional jurisdiction more individual and less collegiate. More specifically, the research focuses on the study of data obtained from the STJ and the study of cases referring to the decisions handed down in the last ten years by the 2nd Section of the STJ (3rd and 4th Panels), in the context of the theme referring to the plans of health, which is among the topics most widely distributed by the Superior Court. It is intended to verify the existence of effects of this “monocratization” in the conduct adopted by the ministers of the 2nd Section in the release of their decisions.

This investigation describes the mechanisms through which the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) processes the information contained in its decisions and generates the database used for jurisprudence research. Furthermore, it also outlines the transformations that have occurred in the treatment and provision of jurisprudential information from the establishment of the Court until 2022. The research has a descriptive nature and analyzed primary documents, namely, the annual reports from the unit responsible for organizing and disseminating STJ's jurisprudence from its inception until 2021, the jurisprudence analyst manuals from 1991, 2002, and from 2004 to 2022, the Research Module from 2000, and the annual reports of the Tribunal Federal de Recursos (TFR) from 1980 to 1989. The objective is to contribute to the development of empirical research in Law by providing insights into the creation and maintenance of STJ's jurisprudence database. As a result, it is possible to affirm that the jurisprudence database from the Court isa referential, because the research is carried out on a document called "Espelho do Acórdão", which contains both identifying information about the collegiate decision and extracted content from the full judgment, inserted into fields that generate searchable metadata. The technical-documentary treatment aims to minimize the difference between the full judgment and the abstract ("ementa"), as well as to form a thematic database that portrays all the legal thesis decided by the Court.

Disinformation has gained unimaginable proportions in the midst technological innovations. There is an increasing dependence on social networks. This framework favors the dissemination of fraudulent content, which does not pass through the filters of journalistic standards. In the electoral context, this informational chaos represents a serious threat to democracy, as it interferes in a harmful way in the formation of voters' will. Therefore, the debate on how to regulate the performance of digital platforms gains importance, since, nowadays, the model introduced by the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (Law n. 12.965/2014) proves to be insufficient, unable to contain the phenomenon. The present study proposes to investigate how the Superior Electoral Court acted to face disinformation in the 2022 elections.

The effectiveness of judicial decisions determining the restriction of access to content on the Internet depends not only on the technical-operational conditions of the elements to which they are destined, on achievable parameters in the context of the state order. The absence of these conditions are treated, in this work, as capacity deficits, like those explored by John Braithwaite in his proposal of responsive regulation by networks of agents for developing economies. This dissertation aims at presenting the elements of Braithwaite's theory to overcome capacity deficits, which exist as barriers to the implementation of a responsive regulatory model, and the observation that, based on this model, collaborative networks may be woven in favor of effective state action.

This dissertation makes an ex post analysis of the Repetitive Appeals Law (BRAZIL, 2008), in the light of the Theory of Legislative Argumentation proposed by Manuel Atienza. It begins with the collection of data related to the processing of the Bill - PL nº 1.213/2007 (BRAZIL, 2007), later converted into Law nº 11.678/2008 (BRASIL, 2008), as well as the rescue of the justification presented and the reasons that gave rise to the approval of the text, in order to verify the rationality and reasonableness of the implementation of a new technique of judgments that, at first, brought doctrinal questions about its pertinence, given the Brazilian procedural system. It proceeds with the analysis of the legislation, based on the levels of rationality proposed by Atienza (1989; 1997), to verify whether the issue of excessive litigation and, especially, the expressive procedural collection of the Superior Court of Justice could be resolved through the proposed legislation. . Subsequently, although there are several addressees of the norm, it was decided to discuss the implementation of the Repetitive Appeals Law from the perspective of the Superior Court of Justice, not only because of the declared purpose of the legislation (to reduce its procedural acquis) but , mainly because it is the body that has the constitutional attribution of interpreting the federal law and standardizing its jurisprudence, with emphasis on the use of artificial intelligence tools and the roles of COGEPAC and NUGEPNAC. In order to make this work possible, bibliographic and documental research was used to collect the data and, through the inductive approach method, it was sought to verify if Law nº 11.672/2008, from the correction criteria proposed by Atienza , was endowed with rationality and reasonableness. In the final considerations, it was concluded that the legislative innovation was unreasonable, taking into account that several factors, of extreme importance for the success of the proposal, were not taken into account, summarized as follows: lack of integration of state and regional Courts and their respective judges in the process under development; the deficiency in the legal training of the various legal actors to deal with jurisprudential law; in addition to the absence of means and instruments that could help to increase the new policy (which only came to light almost a decade after the new law was enacted).

It’s undeniable that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the main tool for technological innovation in the 21st Century. Recently, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) launched the Justice 4.0 Program for the development of intelligent systems capable of improving the provision of judicial services in order to guarantee greater transparency, productivity and efficiency, in addition to supporting the implementation of judicial policies. based on evidence for the promotion of human rights. It’s questioned, however, whether the use of AI in the exercise of jurisdictional provision has the potential to help tackle social inequalities or whether, on the contrary, it only has the power to intensify them. The present study aims to investigate the potential (or not) of this extraordinary tool for the jurisdictional control of public policies aimed at reducing inequalities from the perspective of the decision-making technique of the "Unconstitutional State" (ECI), asking if it’s possible to think about systems that, without replacing the fundamental role of the judge, are able to optimize the inter-institutional dialogue, present viable alternatives and/or list the possible practical consequences of the structural measures necessary to overcome a situation of massive violation of fundamental rights. Through a bibliographic review and the deductive method, the research initially brings a multidisciplinary conceptual approach to AI, its applications to Law, brief comments on Resolution CNJ n. 332/2020 and the enumeration of technological tools in use or under development within the Judiciary. In a second moment, the commitment of the Brazilian State to the reduction of inequalities is explained, presenting the characteristics of the decision-making technique of the ECI, its connection with structural injuctions and the perpetuation of structural (and institutional) racism as an example of an unconstitutional state situation. Next, the potential of using AI systems to support the provision of jurisdiction within the scope of the ECI is outlined, given the possibility of developing indicators based on human rights doctrine focused on experiences from the Global South. Finally, it is evaluated whether the hypothesis of AI usefulness for the jurisdictional activity in the ECI is correct in the light of the peculiarities of this decision-making technique.