CNJ aposenta juíza e muda regras sobre prescrição e decadência Judge Retired by CNJ for Judicial Inefficiency and Favoritism

Judge Retired by CNJ for Judicial Inefficiency and Favoritism

Brasília, April 9, 2025 —

 In a unanimous decision, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) enforced the compulsory retirement of Judge Priscila de Castro Murad, from the Court of Justice of Espírito Santo (TJ/ES), for serious disciplinary violations including judicial inefficiency, disorder in notarial supervision, and preferential treatment of local lawyers.

The ruling, delivered during a session on Tuesday (08/04), concluded a disciplinary review that began in September 2022. According to Counselor Alexandre Teixeira’s report, Judge Murad allowed long delays in jury court cases, showed low productivity, and committed repeated procedural delays.

The plenary had postponed the vote after Counselor Daniela Madeira requested a regimental review, which later resulted in changing the penalty from a warning to compulsory retirement with proportional pay. Counselor Ulisses Rabaneda also analyzed the case, clarifying the time limits applicable to CNJ’s disciplinary powers.

Minister Luís Roberto Barroso announced the final decision, affirming that:

Original jurisdiction cases follow a five-year statute of limitations from when the misconduct is known.

Revisionary cases follow a one-year expiration period from the CNJ’s knowledge of the final court ruling, plus an additional five years to initiate disciplinary action or impose sanctions.

The limitation period is suspended once a disciplinary process is formally opened.

Case number: 0005062-16.2021.2.00.0000

Entenda o caso : 

A magistrada era acusada de ineficiência da prestação jurisdicional, desordem de atividades cartorárias sob sua supervisão, entre outros.

O CNJ decidiu pela aposentadoria compulsória da magistrada Priscila de Castro Murad, do TJ/ES.

 A decisão, unânime, foi proferida nesta terça-feira, 08/04/2025,após votação iniciada em setembro de 2022. 

A revisão disciplinar, relatada pelo conselheiro Alexandre Teixeira, apurou acusações contra a magistrada por ineficiência da prestação jurisdicional, desordem de atividades cartorárias sob sua supervisão, paralisação de processos de competência do Tribunal do Júri por longos períodos, baixa produtividade, tratamento privilegiado a advogados locais e atraso reiterado.

A apreciação do caso pelo plenário teve início em setembro do ano passado. 

Em uma das análises, a conselheira Daniela Madeira pediu vista regimental após a reformulação do voto do relator que rejeitava as questões preliminares, afastava a prescrição e julgava procedente pedido para modificar a sanção de censura para a pena de aposentadoria compulsória com vencimentos proporcionais. 

CNJ se reuniu ontem para sessão de julgamentos.(Imagem: Rômulo Serpa/Agência CNJ)

Já o conselheiro Ulisses Rabaneda, autor de outro pedido de vista feito para análise da prescrição, apresentou seu voto com suas considerações sobre o processo.

 Na avaliação de Rabaneda, a atuação do CNJ, na esfera disciplinar, subdivide-se em competência originária e revisional, cada qual com regimes próprios de prescrição e decadência. 

O entendimento foi acompanhado, por unanimidade, pelos conselheiros. 

Ao final o ministro Luís Roberto Barroso proferiu resultado do julgamento, em que ficou  para a competência originária, o prazo prescricional de cinco anos a contar da data de conhecimento do fato. Já na competência revisional, o prazo decadencial de um ano para instauração de revisão disciplinar contado da data de conhecimento da decisão final do tribunal de origem pelo CNJ. 

E ainda no caso revisional novo prazo de 5 anos para instauração de PAD ou aplicar pena na revisão disciplinar contados da data de conhecimento da decisão pelo tribunal de origem.

 O prazo prescricional se interrompe com a instauração do PAD.

• Processo: 0005062-16.2021.2.00.0000

Tradução completa para o inglês:

The judge was accused of judicial inefficiency, disorder in notarial activities under her supervision, among other issues.

The National Council of Justice (CNJ) decided to enforce the compulsory retirement of Judge Priscila de Castro Murad, from the Court of Justice of Espírito Santo (TJ/ES).

The unanimous decision was rendered on Tuesday, April 8, 2025, following a vote that began in September 2022.

The disciplinary review, reported by Counselor Alexandre Teixeira, investigated accusations against the judge for inefficient judicial performance, disorder in clerical activities under her supervision, prolonged suspension of jury court cases, low productivity, preferential treatment of local lawyers, and repeated delays.

The case was first brought before the CNJ plenary in September of the previous year.

During the proceedings, Counselor Daniela Madeira requested a regimental view after the reporting counselor revised his vote, rejecting preliminary matters, dismissing the statute of limitations, and ruling in favor of converting the disciplinary sanction from a warning to compulsory retirement with proportional remuneration.

The CNJ held its session yesterday to issue rulings. (Image: Rômulo Serpa / CNJ Agency)

Counselor Ulisses Rabaneda, who had also requested a review to analyze the statute of limitations, presented his vote along with his analysis of the case.

In Rabaneda’s opinion, the CNJ’s disciplinary authority is divided into original and revisionary jurisdiction, each with its own rules on limitation and expiration.

This interpretation was unanimously supported by the other counselors.

In conclusion, Minister Luís Roberto Barroso announced the result of the judgment, establishing that for original jurisdiction cases, the statute of limitations is five years from the date of awareness of the fact. In revisionary jurisdiction cases, there is a one-year expiration period for initiating disciplinary review from the date the CNJ becomes aware of the final decision of the original court.

Additionally, in disciplinary reviews, a new five-year deadline applies for initiating administrative disciplinary proceedings (PAD) or imposing penalties, starting from the date the CNJ is informed of the court’s decision.

The statute of limitations is interrupted upon initiation of the PAD.

— Case No.: 0005062-16.2021.2.00.0000