Infojuris System – Version 3.4.9.32 – April 4, 2025, 19:00h
You can view the full document by clicking here:
https://atos.cnj.jus.br/files/original2143302025041067f83b8239730.pdf
PLENÁRIO
Liminar
O CNJ pode afastar magistrados e servidores envolvidos em irregularidades, antes ou durante a apuração disciplinar, quando a permanência nas funções oferece risco às investigações ou à imagem do Poder Judiciário
Há indícios da ação em conjunto de 2 juízes, 1 desembargador e 1 analista judiciário para admitir e dar curso a execução de título extrajudicial manifestamente fraudulenta, cuja tramitação resultou em penhora superior a R$ 150 milhões de reais, em prejuízo de sociedade de economia mista federal.
Um dos magistrados conduziu de forma parcial e irregular a ação de execução de título extrajudicial, admitindo título vencido, proferindo decisões constritivas sem observar o contraditório e praticando atos que limitaram o exercício do direito de defesa da parte executada.
A autuação do outro magistrado e do desembargador culminaram na liberação indevida de valores, sem a cautela exigida, em contexto processual marcado por anomalias.
A participação do servidor ficou evidenciada na expedição de comunicações processuais irregulares, comprometendo a validade dos atos praticados. Em razão da gravidade dos fatos, a Corregedoria Nacional de Justiça deferiu medidas cautelares para suspender os efeitos das decisões proferidas pelos magistrados, bloquear valores, lacrar gabinetes e equipamentos, bem como afastar de imediato o servidor e os magistrados envolvidos.
Embora a liminar também alcance o servidor, a apuração da sua conduta processual e funcional cabe à corregedoria local, que depois deverá informar ao CNJ.
As circunstâncias autorizam o uso do poder cautelar previsto no art. 103- B, § 4º, III, da CF/1988 e no art. 15 da Resolução CNJ nº 135/2011, bem como na jurisprudência consolidada do STF e do próprio CNJ.
Dentro do poder geral de cautela do Corregedor Nacional, insere-se a decisão de afastar, de imediato, o magistrado investigado, antes ou durante a apuração das infrações disciplinares – art. 27, §3º, da Loman.
As condutas graves que autorizam o afastamento preventivo de magistrado ou servidor são as que comprometem as atividades jurisdicionais, bem como as que podem desonrar a imagem do Judiciário.
A finalidade não é intimidar ou punir, mas paralisar prejuízos ou impedir que venham a ocorrer. A necessidade de assegurar o resultado útil das investigações também justifica o afastamento cautelar.
Com base nesses entendimentos, o Plenário do Conselho, por unanimidade, ratificou as medidas liminares concedidas pelo Corregedor.
RD 0000779-08.2025.2.00.0000, Relator: Conselheiro Mauro Campbell Marques, julgado na 4ª Sessão Ordinária em 25 de março de 2025.
"CNJ Disciplinary Actions Reinforce Judicial Integrity and Accountability in Brazil"
The CNJ may remove judges and court officials involved in irregularities, either before or during disciplinary proceedings, when their continued presence in their roles poses a risk to investigations or harms the image of the Judiciary.
A court that imposes a requirement not provided for in the Federal Constitution or in CNJ Resolution No. 303/2019 for the installment payment of court-ordered debts (precatórios) exceeds its regulatory authority. Article 26 of Resolution GP No. 9/2021 of the Santa Catarina State Court (TJSC) is therefore null and void.
Issuing a judgment after the designated period for assisting the court, without due caution and with undue haste in order to meet a private request, constitutes improper conduct.
This violates the duties of independence, impartiality, and integrity, and results in the penalty of compulsory retirement for the appellate judge involved.
Evidence of the sale of court decisions, concealment of received funds, and possible nepotism (hiring of wife and son) justify the initiation of a disciplinary administrative proceeding (PAD) against an appellate judge and the continuation of his removal from office.
When filing a disciplinary review based on Article 83, I of the CNJ’s Internal Rules, the petitioner must demonstrate that the ruling of the local court contains clear illegality or is disconnected from the evidence produced during the investigation.
If the investigative proceeding was closed without initiating a PAD at the local court, the appropriate measure to review the decision at the CNJ is the disciplinary review (RevDis).
If the requirements for a Conduct Adjustment Agreement (TAC) are not met, or if the judge refuses to accept the TAC, the Inspector General may declare the initiation of a PAD, complying with the Plenary’s determination.
The CNJ Plenary upheld the penalty of compulsory removal imposed by the local court on a judge due to mismanagement of the small claims court, non-compliance with CNJ Recommendation No. 12/2013, and failure to comply with determinations issued during a local inspection by the judicial oversight authority.
PLENÁRIO
Infojuris
This case is confidential.
Case Number: 0000779-08.2025.2.00.0000
Case Type: RD – Disciplinary Complaint
Precautionary Measure: ML – Injunction
Reporting Counselor: Mauro Campbell Marques
Session: 4th Ordinary Session of 2025
Date of Judgment: March 25, 2025
ADMINISTRATIVE AND DISCIPLINARY LAW. DISCIPLINARY COMPLAINT. JUDGES AND COURT OFFICIAL FROM THE STATE JUDICIARY. POTENTIALLY IRREGULAR FUNCTIONAL CONDUCT IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF AN EXTRAJUDICIAL INSTRUMENT. PRECAUTIONARY REMOVAL RATIFIED.
I. CASE UNDER REVIEW
-
Disciplinary complaint filed by [...] against Judges and an Appellate Judge, all affiliated with the Court of Justice.
-
The complainant alleged that the judges acted in coordination to admit and process the enforcement of a manifestly fraudulent extrajudicial title, whose proceedings resulted in a seizure exceeding BRL 150 million, to the detriment of a federal mixed-capital company.
-
Due to the seriousness of the reported facts, precautionary measures were granted by the National Judicial Oversight Office, including suspension of the effects of the rulings, freezing of assets, sealing of chambers and equipment, as well as the removal of the judges and the court official involved.
II. ISSUES UNDER DISCUSSION
- Issues under discussion:
(i) whether the judges acted in violation of the functional duties provided in the LOMAN and CNJ Resolution No. 135/2011;
(ii) whether the conditions were met to ratify the precautionary measures, particularly the preventive removal from duties.
III. GROUNDS FOR DECISION
-
It was found that one of the Judges, acting in the Sole Court of the District, conducted the enforcement proceedings in a biased and irregular manner—admitting an expired title, issuing coercive decisions without observing adversarial principles, and taking actions that limited the right of defense of the defendant.
-
It was established that the court official acted jointly with the Judge, issuing irregular procedural communications and compromising the validity of the procedural acts.
-
The legal dispute was transferred to the Federal Court. However, after the public civil action was dismissed due to lack of standing and improper procedural channel, the case returned to the State Court of Amazonas, at which point the actions of the Judge and the Appellate Judge resulted in the improper release of funds without the required procedural safeguards, in a process marked by anomalies.
-
The lack of justification and the gravity of the conduct authorize the use of the precautionary power provided in Article 103-B, §4, III of the Federal Constitution of 1988 and Article 15 of CNJ Resolution No. 135/2011, in accordance with the consolidated case law of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the CNJ itself.
IV. RULING AND LEGAL THESIS
- The precautionary measures determining the removal of the judges and the court official were ratified, without prejudice to the continuation of the disciplinary investigations.
Legal Thesis:
- The precautionary removal of a judge and a court official involved in the case is permissible before or during disciplinary proceedings whenever there is a risk to the integrity of the investigation or to public trust in the Judiciary.
- Biased procedural conduct, denial of due process guarantees, and coordinated actions to the detriment of a public entity may constitute disciplinary infractions subject to judicial oversight.
Plain Text Summary
The Council unanimously decided:
I – To place this procedure on the agenda, pursuant to §1 of Article 120 of the Internal Rules;
II – To ratify the injunction, in accordance with the vote of the Reporting Counselor.
Presiding Judge: Minister Luís Roberto Barroso
Plenary Session Date: March 25, 2025
Legislative References
- Year: 1988 – Federal Constitution, Art. 103-B, §4, Item III
- Resolution: CNJ Resolution 135/2011, Art. 15, §1
- CNJ Case Type: RA – Administrative Appeal in Request for Measures (PP) – Case: 0003153-02.2022.2.00.0000 – Rapporteur: Luis Felipe Salomão
- STF Case Type: ADI – Case: 4709 – Rapporteur: Rosa Weber
Infojuris – Version 3.4.9.32 – April 4, 2025, 19:00
Created by: Department of Information Technology / National Council of Justice
© National Council of Justice. All rights reserved.
www.cnj.jus.br
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário