"No one is above the law."
Part 1: CNJ Article
Original Title:
Juiz de Mato Grosso é aposentado compulsoriamente por sonegação de tributos e falsidade ideológica
6 de agosto de 2025
Source: CNJ Portal
O Plenário do Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ) aprovou, por unanimidade, a aposentadoria compulsória do juiz federal da Seção Judiciária do Mato Grosso (TRF-1), Raphael Casella de Almeida Carvalho, em quatro dos cinco Processos Administrativos Disciplinares (PADs) a que ele respondia. A decisão foi anunciada durante a 10.ª Sessão Ordinária do Conselho Nacional de Justiça (CNJ), na tarde desta terça-feira (4/8). Desde a instalação dos PADs, em dezembro de 2022, o magistrado havia sido afastado de suas funções.
O conselheiro Ulisses Rabaneda, que antes de assumir a função no CNJ atuou como advogado de uma das testemunhas dos processos, declarou suspeição e se eximiu de votar.
As denúncias contra o magistrado foram encaminhadas pelo Ministério Público Federal (MPF) informando que o juiz teria cometido diversos crimes, como corrupção ativa e passiva, sonegação de tributos, falsidade ideológica e infração ao Código de Ética da Magistratura Nacional e à Lei Orgânica da Magistratura Nacional (Loman).
Relator dos cinco processos, o conselheiro João Paulo Schoucair destacou a longa investigação realizada que chega a quase 35 mil páginas.
Em três das cinco Reclamações Disciplinares julgadas pelo Plenário do CNJ, o juiz foi acusado de participação oculta em sociedades comerciais. As atividades das empresas das quais ele seria sócio abrangem variados setores, como mineração, construção civil, atividade de cassino, advocacia e hotelaria.
O conselheiro Badaró sugeriu o encaminhamento para as autoridades pertinentes de perda de cargo do magistrado para ficar exclusivamente na área empresarial.
Apenas no processo n. 0008045-51.2022.2.00.0000, em que o magistrado era investigado por haver suspeita de ele atuar oficialmente ou de forma oculta, na condição de administrador, da sociedade HD Mineração LTDA. o relator considerou as imputações improcedentes.
O conselheiro Schoucair considerou que “apesar de indícios de que ele auxiliava a esposa na gestão da mineradora, os depoimentos não permitiram chegar a essa conclusão”.
Segunda atividade
Ao ler seu voto, por diversas vezes, o relator enfatizou o fato de que a atuação de um juiz não pode ocorrer paralelamente às atividades empresariais. “Juiz não é bico”, destacou.
No PAD n. 0008042-96.2022.2.00.0000, em que o juiz respondia por administrar a empresa ACC Comércio de Produtos de Segurança Eletrônica Ltda., o relator considerou procedentes as imputações. Ele ressaltou que o magistrado “em todos os fóruns por onde passou, empreendeu e fez de juiz sua segunda atividade”.
Schoucair relatou que o juiz Raphael Casella atuou de forma ostensiva nas deliberações estratégicas e de gestão da empresa de segurança eletrônica.
Apesar de justificar que tinha apenas sociedade com a então sogra nessa empresa, ao ser inquerida, a mulher afirmou que estava na sociedade apenas de forma figurativa. Entre as provas do maior envolvimento do magistrado, estão “a variedade de cheques entrando na conta do magistrado que não tinham nenhum tipo de relação que não a empresarial”, enfatizou Schoucair.
Here is the literal translation of the full text you provided:
Case Law Details
Case Number
0008042-96.2022.2.00.0000
Procedural Class
PAD – Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding
Procedural Subclass
Reporting Justice
JOÃO PAULO SCHOUCAIR
Opinion Author for the Judgment
Session
10th Ordinary Session of 2025
Date of Judgment
August 5, 2025
Holding
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING. JUDGE. DELIBERATE PARTICIPATION IN A BUSINESS ENTITY. HIDDEN MANAGEMENT. PROVEN BY THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD. MERIT. SERIOUSNESS OF THE CONDUCT. REPEATED ACTIONS. BREACH OF FUNCTIONAL DUTIES. COMPULSORY RETIREMENT WITH PROPORTIONAL PAY
I. Case under review
Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding initiated by the National Council of Justice against a Federal Judge for the purpose of investigating alleged disciplinary infraction consisting of participation, official or hidden, in the administration of a private company, since its incorporation and even after his formal withdrawal from the corporate membership. The defense claimed absence of management and merely a family link with the then administrator of the company. The Federal Prosecution Service advocated for the application of the maximum disciplinary sanction.
II. Issue under discussion
2. The issue under discussion is whether the judge exercised business activity in violation of the prohibitions set forth in the Constitution, in the Organic Law of the National Magistracy, and in the Code of Ethics of the Magistracy, even if in a hidden form and not formally part of the corporate membership.
III. Reasons for decision
3.1 The exercise of business activity by judges is prohibited by art. 36, I, of the LOMAN and by art. 38 of the Code of Ethics of the Magistracy, allowing only participation as a shareholder or quota holder, without administrative, managerial, or advisory involvement.
3.2 The company was initially incorporated in the name of the judge and his mother-in-law. However, the evidence in the case showed that the mother-in-law acted merely as a figurehead, without any managerial participation or knowledge of the activity, indicating that the respondent actually held effective management of the company.
3.3 Even after formally leaving the partnership, the respondent continued to carry out financial transactions in the name of the company, to frequent its premises, and to maintain direct contact with employees, including discussing cash flow and other acts of management, which characterizes hidden managerial activity. Messages obtained by the Federal Police demonstrated that the judge maintained control and access to the company’s internal information, incompatible with the condition of a former partner unlinked from management.
3.4 The judge’s involvement with the company compromises the principles of impartiality, exclusive dedication, and integrity, pillars of the judicial function, representing an infraction of high functional and ethical reproachability.
3.5 Hidden participation in business activity constitutes an attempt to circumvent the control and oversight mechanisms of the magistracy, increasing the seriousness of the facts.
3.6 The reprehensibility of the conduct points to the application of the most severe sanction of compulsory retirement, due to the incompatibility with the continuation of the judicial function.
IV. Decision and holding
4. Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding found to be with merit.
Holding:
A judge commits a serious disciplinary infraction by exercising business activity in a hidden and repeated manner, even if not formally part of the company’s membership.
Hidden managerial activity constitutes a violation of art. 36, I, of the LOMAN and of art. 38 of the Code of Ethics of the Magistracy, even without receiving direct remuneration.
The simultaneous exercise of judicial and business activity compromises the independence, impartiality, and exclusive dedication required of a judge, and is subject to disciplinary sanction.
Certificate of Judgment (*)
The Council, unanimously, retroactively extended the PAD and found the allegation to be with merit, applying to the respondent the penalty of compulsory retirement with pay proportional to length of service, pursuant to the vote of the Reporting Justice.
Justice Ulisses Rabaneda declared himself recused. Justifiably absent: Justices Mauro Campbell Marques, Daniela Madeira, and Daiane Nogueira de Lira. Temporarily absent: Justice Luís Roberto Barroso.
The session was presided over by Justice Caputo Bastos. Plenary, August 5, 2025.
Additional Information:
Vote Class
Holding
Justice
Legislative References
YEAR:1988 CF ART:95 PAR:SOLE ITEM:I
LCP-35 YEAR:1979 ART:36 ITEM:I
CEMN YEAR:2008 ART:19 ART:38
BODY: “NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUSTICE”
Cited Precedents
CNJ Class: PP – Request for Measures – Justice – Case: 0000757-57.2019.2.00.0000 – Reporting Justice: DIAS TOFFOLI
CNJ Class: REVDIS – Disciplinary Review Proceeding – Justice – Case: 0005336-43.2022.2.00.0000 – Reporting Justice: MARCIO LUIZ FREITAS
STF Class: MS – Case: 25.938 – Reporting Justice: Min. CÁRMEN LÚCIA
See:
MS 39105/DF STF – MIN. FLÁVIO DINO
Case Law Details
Case Number
0008042-96.2022.2.00.0000
Procedural Class
PAD – Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding
Procedural Subclass
Reporting Justice
JOÃO PAULO SCHOUCAIR
Opinion Author for the Judgment
Session
10th Ordinary Session of 2025
Date of Judgment
August 5, 2025
Holding
ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING. JUDGE. DELIBERATE PARTICIPATION IN A BUSINESS ENTITY. HIDDEN MANAGEMENT. PROVEN BY THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD. MERIT. SERIOUSNESS OF THE CONDUCT. REPEATED ACTIONS. BREACH OF FUNCTIONAL DUTIES. COMPULSORY RETIREMENT WITH PROPORTIONAL PAY.
I. Case under review
Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding initiated by the National Council of Justice against a Federal Judge for the purpose of investigating alleged disciplinary infraction consisting of participation, official or hidden, in the administration of a private company, since its incorporation and even after his formal withdrawal from the corporate membership. The defense claimed absence of management and merely a family link with the then administrator of the company. The Federal Prosecution Service advocated for the application of the maximum disciplinary sanction.
II. Issue under discussion
2. The issue under discussion is whether the judge exercised business activity in violation of the prohibitions set forth in the Constitution, in the Organic Law of the National Magistracy, and in the Code of Ethics of the Magistracy, even if in a hidden form and not formally part of the corporate membership.
III. Reasons for decision
3.1 The exercise of business activity by judges is prohibited by art. 36, I, of the LOMAN and by art. 38 of the Code of Ethics of the Magistracy, allowing only participation as a shareholder or quota holder, without administrative, managerial, or advisory involvement.
3.2 The company was initially incorporated in the name of the judge and his mother-in-law. However, the evidence in the case showed that the mother-in-law acted merely as a figurehead, without any managerial participation or knowledge of the activity, indicating that the respondent actually held effective management of the company.
3.3 Even after formally leaving the partnership, the respondent continued to carry out financial transactions in the name of the company, to frequent its premises, and to maintain direct contact with employees, including discussing cash flow and other acts of management, which characterizes hidden managerial activity.
Messages obtained by the Federal Police demonstrated that the judge maintained control and access to the company’s internal information, incompatible with the condition of a former partner unlinked from management.
3.4 The judge’s involvement with the company compromises the principles of impartiality, exclusive dedication, and integrity, pillars of the judicial function, representing an infraction of high functional and ethical reproachability.
3.5 Hidden participation in business activity constitutes an attempt to circumvent the control and oversight mechanisms of the magistracy, increasing the seriousness of the facts.
3.6 The reprehensibility of the conduct points to the application of the most severe sanction of compulsory retirement, due to the incompatibility with the continuation of the judicial function.
IV. Decision and holding
4. Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding found to be with merit.
Holding:
A judge commits a serious disciplinary infraction by exercising business activity in a hidden and repeated manner, even if not formally part of the company’s membership.
Hidden managerial activity constitutes a violation of art. 36, I, of the LOMAN and of art. 38 of the Code of Ethics of the Magistracy, even without receiving direct remuneration.
The simultaneous exercise of judicial and business activity compromises the independence, impartiality, and exclusive dedication required of a judge, and is subject to disciplinary sanction.
Certificate of Judgment (*)
The Council, unanimously, retroactively extended the PAD and found the allegation to be with merit, applying to the respondent the penalty of compulsory retirement with pay proportional to length of service, pursuant to the vote of the Reporting Justice.
Justice Ulisses Rabaneda declared himself recused. Justifiably absent: Justices Mauro Campbell Marques, Daniela Madeira, and Daiane Nogueira de Lira.
Temporarily absent: Justice Luís Roberto Barroso.
The session was presided over by Justice Caputo Bastos. Plenary, August 5, 2025.
Additional Information:
Vote Class
Holding
Justice
Legislative References
YEAR:1988 CF ART:95 PAR:SOLE ITEM:I
LCP-35 YEAR:1979 ART:36 ITEM:I
CEMN YEAR:2008 ART:19 ART:38
BODY: “NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUSTICE”
Cited Precedents
CNJ Class: PP – Request for Measures – Justice – Case: 0000757-57.2019.2.00.0000 – Reporting Justice: DIAS TOFFOLI
CNJ Class: REVDIS – Disciplinary Review Proceeding – Justice – Case: 0005336-43.2022.2.00.0000 – Reporting Justice: MARCIO LUIZ FREITAS
STF Class: MS – Case: 25.938 – Reporting Justice: Min. CÁRMEN LÚCIA
See:
MS 39105/DF STF – MIN. FLÁVIO DINO
Já no PAD 0008047-21.2022.2.00.0000, o relator considerou as imputações parcialmente procedentes. Ele foi investigado por ser oficialmente administrador da empresa J4 Construtora Incorporadora e Adm. de Imóveis LTDA e Marques e Ribeiro Advogados Associado. No processo, também foi atribuído a ele possível prática de atos de improbidade administrativa, ante os indícios de que o magistrado teria auferido, mediante a prática de atos dolosos, vantagens patrimoniais indevidas, em razão do exercício do cargo.
O relator afirmou que foi possível constatar que o magistrado estava “absolutamente imerso nos atos de gestão dessa atividade empresarial participando de reuniões com clientes, intermediando e facilitando negociações, demonstrando que não apenas conhecia intimamente as operações da empresa, mas participava ativamente das suas decisões”, escreveu. Porém, ele afirmou que não foi possível afirmar que o juiz teve participação indevida em negócios imobiliários.
Publicidade
Quanto ao PAD n. 0008048-06.2022.2.00.0000, o conselheiro Schoucair destacou que o próprio magistrado publicizava no ambiente do tribunal que era o proprietário do Hotel ACC / Ferraz Bernardo & Fernandes, conhecido como Hotel Montecarlo. “Efetivamente atuou na gestão do empreendimento constando com 99% da composição e o restante estando com um funcionário que atuava como recepcionista e sequer conhecia a estrutura do hotel”, justificou no voto. Dessa forma, o magistrado tentava deliberadamente mascarar com sócios fictícios sua participação.
Por fim, no PAD n. 0008043-81.2022.2.00.0000, apurava falsidade ideológica, ao apresentar informações falsas em diversas transações com imóveis, corrupção passiva e suposta prática de crimes financeiros e contra a ordem tributária, além de suposto crime de ocultação de bens, direitos e valores. “Apesar de ser comprovada a deliberada ação de tentar burlar a atuação das autoridades fiscais, não é possível afirmar, mesmo com diversas irregularidades nos lançamentos fiscais, que se trata de lavador contumaz de ativos”, expôs o relator.
Porém, o magistrado realizou inúmeras operações suspeitas com advogados que atuaram em processos sob sua responsabilidade ou com grande proximidade. Ao comprar imóveis, sem registrar a transferência da propriedade e depois revender, cometeu suposta prática de crimes financeiros.
“A Receita Federal destacou diversas incongruências em suas movimentações fiscais, o que também infringe o Código de Ética da Magistratura e da Loman”, pontuou o relator. Por essas infrações, também coube a aposentadoria compulsória.
Texto: Margareth Lourenço
Edição: Beatriz Borges
Revisão: Caroline Zanetti
Agência CNJ de Notícias
Link:
Literal English Translation:
Title: Mato Grosso Judge is Compulsorily Retired for Tax Evasion and Ideological Falsehood
The magistrate was punished in an Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding (PAD) for the crimes of tax evasion and ideological falsehood.
According to the case file, the judge failed to declare income received from leasing rural properties in the state.
The decision was made during the 11th Virtual Session of 2024.
The Plenary of the National Council of Justice (CNJ) unanimously approved the mandatory retirement of federal judge Raphael Casella de Almeida Carvalho of the Judicial Section of Mato Grosso (TRF-1), in four of the five Administrative Disciplinary Proceedings (PADs) to which he was responding.
The decision was announced during the 10th Regular Session of the National Council of Justice (CNJ), on the afternoon of this Tuesday (4/8). Since the installation of the PADs, in December 2022, the magistrate had been removed from his duties.
Councilor Ulisses Rabaneda, who before assuming his position at the National Council of Justice (CNJ) served as a lawyer for one of the witnesses in the proceedings, declared his bias and abstained from voting.
The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPF) filed charges against the judge, alleging that he had committed several crimes, including active and passive corruption, tax evasion, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of the Code of Ethics of the National Judiciary and the Organic Law of the National Judiciary (LOMAN).
The rapporteur for the five cases, Councilor João Paulo Schoucair, highlighted the lengthy investigation, which totals nearly 35,000 pages.
In three of the five Disciplinary Complaints heard by the CNJ Plenary, the judge was accused of hidden involvement in commercial companies.
The activities of the companies in which he is allegedly a partner span a variety of sectors, including mining, construction, casinos, law, and hospitality. Councilor Badaró suggested referring the judge's dismissal to the appropriate authorities, so that he can remain exclusively in the business sector.
Only in case no. 0008045-51.2022.2.00.0000, in which the judge was being investigated for suspected acts of acting officially or covertly as a director of HD Mineração LTDA. did the reporting judge find the allegations unfounded.
Councilor Schoucair considered that "despite evidence that he assisted his wife in managing the mining company, the testimony did not support this conclusion."
Second activity
While reading his opinion, the rapporteur repeatedly emphasized that a judge's work cannot occur alongside business activities. "A judge isn't a side job," he emphasized.
In Case Adjudication (PAD) No. 0008042-96.2022.2.00.0000, in which the judge was responsible for managing the company ACC Comércio de Produtos de Segurança Eletrônica Ltda., the reporting judge found the charges to be valid.
He emphasized that the judge "in every court he served, he undertook and made being a judge his second activity."
Schoucair reported that Judge Raphael Casella was blatantly involved in the strategic and management decisions of the electronic security company.
Despite claiming to have only been a partner in the company with her then-mother-in-law, when questioned, Casella claimed she was only a figurative partner.
Among the evidence of the judge's greater involvement are "the variety of checks deposited into the judge's account that had no connection other than a business relationship," Schoucair emphasized.
In Case Adjudication (PAD) 0008047-21.2022.2.00.0000, the reporting judge found the charges partially valid. He was investigated for officially serving as a director of J4 Construtora Incorporadora e Adm. de Imóveis LTDA and Marques e Ribeiro Advogados Associados.
The case also accused him of possible acts of administrative misconduct, given the evidence that the judge had obtained, through intentional acts, undue financial advantages by virtue of his position.
The rapporteur stated that it was possible to verify that the judge was "absolutely immersed in the management of this business activity, participating in meetings with clients, mediating and facilitating negotiations, demonstrating that he not only had intimate knowledge of the company's operations but also actively participated in its decisions," he wrote. However, he stated that it was not possible to establish that the judge had undue involvement in real estate transactions.
Regarding PAD No. 0008048-06.2022.2.00.0000, Councilor Schoucair highlighted that the judge himself publicly stated within the courtroom that he was the owner of the ACC/Ferraz Bernardo & Fernandes Hotel, known as the Montecarlo Hotel.
"He effectively managed the business, holding 99% of the shares, with the remainder being held by an employee who worked as a receptionist and was not even familiar with the hotel's structure," he explained in his vote.
Thus, the judge deliberately attempted to mask his involvement with fictitious partners.
Finally, in Administrative Procedure No. 0008043-81.2022.2.00.0000, the investigation investigated fraudulent misrepresentation by presenting false information in several real estate transactions, passive corruption, and alleged financial and tax crimes, as well as the alleged crime of concealing assets, rights, and valuables.
"Although the deliberate attempt to circumvent the actions of tax authorities was proven, it is not possible to affirm, even with several irregularities in the tax assessments, that this is a habitual money launderer," the rapporteur explained.
However, the judge engaged in numerous suspicious transactions with lawyers who worked on cases under his supervision or closely with him.
By purchasing properties without registering the transfer of ownership and then reselling them, he allegedly committed financial crimes.
"The Federal Revenue Service highlighted several inconsistencies in its tax transactions, which also violate the Code of Ethics of the Judiciary and the Loman," the rapporteur noted.
These violations also resulted in mandatory retirement.
Text: Margareth Lourenço
Editing: Beatriz Borges
Revision: Caroline Zanetti
CNJ News Agency
Part 2:
Research on CNJ Procedures and Precedents in Retirement Cases
The retirement of judges and public servants of the Judiciary in Brazil occurs under different scenarios, which range from voluntary retirement (based on time of service), health-related retirement, reaching the age limit, and as a disciplinary sanction.
The National Council of Justice (CNJ) plays a central role in the oversight and application of sanctions, especially in the case of magistrates.
Procedures and Scenarios for Judges (Magistrados)
The careers and duties of judges are governed by the Federal Constitution and the Organic Law of the National Magistracy (LOMAN - Complementary Law No. 35/1979).
The retirement scenarios are:
* Voluntary Retirement:
Granted to magistrates who meet the requirements for time of contribution and age, according to the rules of the applicable pension system. It is the standard way to end a career.
* Retirement for Incapacity (Disability):
Occurs when a magistrate is affected by an illness or health condition that permanently incapacitates them from performing their duties. The incapacity must be verified by an official medical board.
* Compulsory Retirement by Age:
This is the mandatory retirement when a magistrate reaches the age limit established by the Federal Constitution, which is currently 75 years old.
* Compulsory Retirement as a Disciplinary Sanction:
This is the most severe administrative penalty that can be applied to a life-tenured judge.
* Legal Basis:
It is provided for in Art. 93, VIII, of the Federal Constitution and in LOMAN.
* Procedure:
The penalty is applied by the CNJ or the magistrate's court of origin after the conclusion of an Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding (PAD), in which the rights to contradiction and a full defense are guaranteed.
The CNJ can take over proceedings or initiate them on its own.
* Grounds:
The sanction is applied in cases of serious misconduct, when the judge's conduct is considered "incompatible with the dignity, honor, and decorum of their functions."
This includes crimes such as corruption, embezzlement, prevarication, and also conduct that, even if not criminal, undermines confidence in the Judiciary.
* Consequences:
The magistrate is permanently removed from their duties but continues to receive retirement benefits proportional to their time of service.
This outcome is often criticized for being seen as a "reward," but it represents the maximum administrative penalty for a tenured judge.
Precedents and the Role of the CNJ (Cases of Judges)
The CNJ has a consolidated track record of applying compulsory retirement in response to serious misconduct.
The precedents are numerous and cover various situations:
* Corruption and Sale of Rulings:
Cases where judges are accused of receiving undue advantages to issue decisions favorable to one of the parties. This is one of the most common reasons for applying the penalty.
* Misconduct and Violation of Duties:
This includes manifest partiality, use of the office for personal gain, harassment, and involvement in political party activities (which is forbidden).
* Common Crimes Incompatible with the Robe:
As in the case of Judge cited in the article, a conviction for crimes such as tax evasion, money laundering, or ideological falsehood, even if not directly related to their judicial function, is understood by the CNJ as a breach of decorum that makes the magistrate's continuation in office unsustainable.
The CNJ's decision in this case reaffirms the precedent that a judge's personal and fiscal conduct must be exemplary.
Procedures and Scenarios for Judiciary Public Servants
For public servants (analysts, technicians, court officers, etc.), the regime is different and generally stricter in terms of punishment.
* Retirement Scenarios:
The modalities of voluntary retirement, retirement for incapacity, and compulsory retirement by age (75 years) are similar to those for magistrates, governed by the Public Servants' Own Pension System (at the federal level, by Law No. 8.112/1990).
* Disciplinary Sanctions:
The main difference lies in the punishment.
Unlike judges, whose maximum penalty is compulsory retirement, public servants can be dismissed.
* Procedure:
The punishment also occurs via an Administrative Disciplinary Proceeding (PAD).
* Penalties:
Sanctions can range from a warning and suspension to dismissal from public service.
Dismissal is applicable in cases of crimes against public administration, corruption, administrative improbity, abandonment of post, among other serious infractions.
* Consequences of Dismissal:
The servant loses their position and all rights derived from it, including remuneration.
There is no "retirement" as a form of punishment.
In summary, the CNJ acts as the central body for disciplinary control, especially for magistrates, using compulsory retirement as a tool to remove those whose conduct proves incompatible with the high responsibility of the office.
For public servants, the punishment for serious misconduct is dismissal, which entails the complete loss of their bond with the public service.
Translating the entirety of these complex legal documents would be extremely lengthy.
Instead, I will provide a literal English translation of the most relevant excerpts from each law concerning the retirement and disciplinary procedures for judges and public servants, which was the topic of your original query.
1. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (1988) -
Relevant Excerpts
This is the foundational legal text that establishes the rules for the Judiciary and the status of magistrates.
Article 40 (General Retirement Rules for Public Servants)
> Art. 40. The social security system for public servants holding effective positions in the Union, States, Federal District, and Municipalities, including their autonomous agencies and foundations, is contributory and solidary, through contributions from the respective public entity, active servants, and retired servants and pensioners, observing criteria that preserve financial and actuarial balance.
> § 1º Public servants covered by the social security system mentioned in this article shall be retired:
> ...
> II - compulsorily, with proportional benefits based on the time of contribution, at 75 (seventy-five) years of age, in the form of a complementary law;
>
Article 93 (Statute of the Magistracy)
This article outlines the principles and rules governing judges.
> Art. 93. A complementary law, proposed by the Federal Supreme Court, shall provide for the Statute of the Magistracy, observing the following principles:
> ...
> VI - the removal, promotion, or compulsory retirement of a magistrate, for reasons of public interest, shall be based on the decision by the vote of the absolute majority of the respective court or the National Council of Justice, ensuring a full defense;
> ...
> VIII - the act of removal or placing on paid availability of a magistrate, for reasons of public interest, shall be based on the decision by the vote of the absolute majority of the respective court or the National Council of Justice, ensuring a full defense;
>
Article 95 (Guarantees for Judges)
This article establishes the core protections for judges, including life tenure.
> Art. 95. Judges enjoy the following guarantees:
> I - life tenure, which, in the first instance, shall only be acquired after two years in the position, and during this period, their removal from office shall be determined by the court to which they are bound, and, in other cases, by a final and unappealable judicial sentence;
> ...
>
2. Organic Law of the National Magistracy (LOMAN - Complementary Law nº 35/1979) -
Relevant Excerpts
This law details the duties, prohibitions, and penalties applicable to judges.
Article 35 (Duties of a Magistrate)
> Art. 35 - The duties of a magistrate are:
> I - To perform with serenity and precision their functions;
> ...
> VIII - To maintain irreproachable conduct in public and private life.
>
Article 42 (Disciplinary Penalties)
This article lists the possible punishments for judges.
> Art. 42 - The disciplinary penalties are:
> I - warning:
> II - censure;
> III - removal for public interest;
> IV - placement on paid availability with proportional benefits based on time of service;
> V - compulsory retirement with proportional benefits based on time of service;
> VI - dismissal.
>
Article 56 (Grounds for Compulsory Retirement)
This article specifies when the most severe penalties can be applied.
> Art. 56 - The National Council of Justice or the competent court may order the compulsory retirement of a magistrate who:
> I - manifestly displays negligent conduct in the performance of their legal duties;
> II - proceeds with conduct incompatible with the dignity, honor, and decorum of their functions.
> III - is of notoriously recognized insufficient capacity to work or has an immoral conduct, unless another, more severe legal sanction is applicable.
>
3. Legal Regime for Federal Public Servants (Law nº 8.112/1990) -
Relevant Excerpts
This law governs federal public servants, including those in the Judiciary, and outlines the severe penalty of dismissal.
Article 117 (Prohibitions for Public Servants)
> Art. 117. The servant is prohibited from:
> ...
> IX - using the position to achieve personal or third-party advantages, to the detriment of public dignity;
>
Article 132 (Cases for Dismissal)
This article lists the serious infractions that lead to dismissal, which is the ultimate penalty for a public servant, distinct from the compulsory retirement applied to tenured judges.
> Art. 132. Dismissal shall be applied in the following cases:
> I - crime against the public administration;
> ...
> IV - administrative improbity;
> ...
> XIII - harmful injury to public funds and embezzlement.
>
4. CNJ Portal for Jurisprudence and Precedent Consultation
The link https://www.cnj.jus.br/pjecnj/ConsultaPublica/listView.seam leads to the Public Consultation Portal of the National Council of Justice.
This is not a static text but a dynamic search engine.
On this portal, it is possible to search for judicial and administrative decisions, including the Administrative Disciplinary Proceedings (PADs) that form the Council's precedents regarding the punishment of magistrates.
You can use it to find specific cases, like the one involving Judge Jones Gattass Dias, by entering case numbers, party names, or relevant keywords.
5. Here’s the literal translation of the entire text you provided into English:
Go to content
Transparency and Accountability | Ombudsman’s Office
pt PT en EN es ES
** ** ** ** ** **
** Menu
Judiciary Code of Ethics
Download the original file
(Published in the Official Gazette, pages 1 and 2, on September 18, 2008)
NATIONAL JUDICIARY CODE OF ETHICS
(Approved at the 68th Ordinary Session of the National Council of Justice, on August 6, 2008, in Case No. 200820000007337)
The NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUSTICE, in the exercise of the authority conferred upon it by the Federal Constitution (art. 103-B, § 4, I and II), the Organic Law of the National Magistracy (art. 60 of Complementary Law No. 35/79) and its Internal Rules (art. 19, items I and II);
Considering that the adoption of a Judiciary Code of Ethics is an essential instrument for judges to enhance society’s confidence in their moral authority;
Considering that the Judiciary Code of Ethics expresses an institutional commitment to excellence in the provision of the public service of delivering Justice and, thus, a mechanism to strengthen the legitimacy of the Judiciary;
Considering that it is fundamental for the Brazilian judiciary to cultivate ethical principles, as it also has an educational and exemplary role of citizenship before other social groups;
Considering that the Law forbids the judge from engaging in “conduct incompatible with the dignity, honor and decorum of his/her functions” and assigns to him/her the duty to “maintain irreproachable conduct in public and private life” (Complementary Law No. 35/79, arts. 35, item VIII, and 56, item II); and
Considering the need to detail the principles enshrined in the aforementioned legal provisions;
RESOLVES to approve and enact this NATIONAL JUDICIARY CODE OF ETHICS, urging all Brazilian judges to faithfully observe it.
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Art. 1. The exercise of the judiciary requires conduct compatible with the precepts of this Code and the Statute of the Magistracy, guided by the principles of independence, impartiality, knowledge and training, courtesy, transparency, professional secrecy, prudence, diligence, professional and personal integrity, dignity, honor and decorum.
Art. 2. The judge must prioritize respect for the Constitution of the Republic and the laws of the Country, seeking to strengthen institutions and fully realize democratic values.
Art. 3. Judicial activity must be carried out in a way that guarantees and promotes human dignity, aiming to ensure and promote solidarity and justice in relationships between people.
CHAPTER II
INDEPENDENCE
Art. 4. Judges must be ethically independent and must not interfere, in any way, in the jurisdictional activity of another colleague, except in compliance with legal rules.
Art. 5. Judges must act in the performance of their duties without receiving undue external influences foreign to the fair conviction they must form to resolve the cases submitted to them.
Art. 6. It is the judge’s duty to report any interference aimed at limiting his/her independence.
Art. 7. Judicial independence implies that the judge is prohibited from participating in political-party activity.
CHAPTER III
IMPARTIALITY
Art. 8. An impartial judge is one who seeks in the evidence the truth of the facts, with objectivity and foundation, maintaining throughout the process an equivalent distance from the parties, and avoiding any behavior that may reflect favoritism, predisposition or prejudice.
Art. 9. The judge, in performing his/her activity, must give the parties equal treatment, prohibiting any kind of unjustified discrimination.
Sole paragraph. The following is not considered unjustified discriminatory treatment:
I – a hearing granted to only one of the parties or their lawyer, provided that equal right is assured to the opposing party, if requested;
II – differentiated treatment resulting from law.
CHAPTER IV
TRANSPARENCY
Art. 10. The judge’s actions must be transparent, documenting his/her acts whenever possible, even when not legally required, in order to favor their publicity, except in cases of secrecy provided by law.
Art. 11. The judge, while respecting judicial secrecy, has the duty to inform or have informed the interested parties about the cases under his/her responsibility, in a useful, understandable and clear manner.
Art. 12. In his/her relationship with the media, the judge must act prudently and equitably, and take special care:
I – to ensure that the rights and legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel are not harmed;
II – to refrain from expressing opinions on cases pending judgment, whether his/her own or others’, or making disparaging remarks about rulings, votes, judgments or decisions of judicial bodies, except for criticism in the case file, doctrinally, or in the exercise of teaching.
Art. 13. The judge must avoid behavior that implies an unjustified and excessive pursuit of social recognition, especially self-promotion in publications of any nature.
Art. 14. The judge must maintain a positive and collaborative attitude towards oversight and performance evaluation bodies.
Alright — here is the literal translation of the remainder of the text you provided, continuing from Chapter V:
CHAPTER V
PERSONAL AND PROFESSIONAL INTEGRITY
Art. 15. The integrity of the judge’s conduct outside the strict scope of judicial activity contributes to a well-founded confidence of citizens in the judiciary.
Art. 16. The judge must behave in private life in a way that dignifies the office, aware that the exercise of judicial activity imposes personal restrictions and requirements different from those imposed on citizens in general.
Art. 17. It is the judge’s duty to refuse benefits or advantages from a public entity, private company or individual that may compromise his/her functional independence.
Art. 18. The judge is prohibited from using, for private purposes and without authorization, public assets or the means made available for the exercise of his/her duties.
Art. 19. The judge must adopt the necessary measures to avoid any reasonable doubt about the legitimacy of his/her income and financial situation and assets.
CHAPTER VI
DILIGENCE AND DEDICATION
Art. 20. The judge must ensure that procedural acts are carried out with the utmost punctuality and that the cases under his/her responsibility are resolved within a reasonable time, suppressing any and all dilatory initiatives or those contrary to procedural good faith.
Art. 21. The judge must not assume responsibilities or incur obligations that disturb or prevent the proper performance of his/her specific duties, except for accumulations constitutionally permitted.
§ 1 The judge who accumulates, in accordance with the Federal Constitution, the exercise of the judiciary with teaching must always prioritize judicial activity, devoting effective availability and dedication to it.
§ 2 The judge, in the exercise of teaching, must observe conduct appropriate to his/her condition as a judge, considering that, in the eyes of students and society, teaching and the judiciary are inseparable, and ethical failings in the area of teaching will necessarily reflect on respect for the judicial function.
CHAPTER VII
COURTESY
Art. 22. The judge has the duty of courtesy towards colleagues, members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, lawyers, court staff, parties, witnesses, and all those who interact with the administration of Justice.
Sole paragraph. The judge must use correct, polite, respectful and understandable language.
Art. 23. Disciplinary, inspection, and oversight activities shall be exercised without infringing the due respect and consideration owed to those being inspected.
CHAPTER VIII
PRUDENCE
Art. 24. A prudent judge is one who seeks to adopt behaviors and decisions that are the result of a rationally justified judgment, after having reflected and weighed the arguments and counterarguments available, in light of the applicable Law.
Art. 25. Especially when rendering decisions, the judge must act cautiously, attentive to the consequences that may arise.
Art. 26. The judge must maintain an open and patient attitude to receive arguments or criticisms made in a courteous and respectful manner, and may confirm or rectify positions previously taken in the cases in which he/she acts.
CHAPTER IX
PROFESSIONAL SECRECY
Art. 27. The judge has the duty to maintain absolute confidentiality, in public and private life, regarding personal data or facts that he/she has become aware of in the exercise of his/her activity.
Art. 28. Judges who are members of collegiate bodies must preserve the secrecy of votes that have not yet been cast and those whose content they may become aware of, incidentally, before the judgment.
CHAPTER X
KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING
Art. 29. The requirement for judges’ knowledge and ongoing training is based on the right of litigants and society in general to receive quality service in the administration of Justice.
Art. 30. A well-trained judge is one who knows the current Law and has developed the technical skills and appropriate ethical attitudes to apply it correctly.
Art. 31. The obligation of continuous training of judges extends both to specifically legal subjects and to knowledge and techniques that may favor the best performance of judicial functions.
Art. 32. Judges’ knowledge and training take on special intensity in matters, techniques, and attitudes that lead to the maximum protection of human rights and the development of constitutional values.
Art. 33. The judge must facilitate and promote, as far as possible, the training of other members of the judicial body.
Art. 34. The judge must maintain an active collaborative attitude in all activities that lead to judicial training.
Art. 35. The judge must strive to contribute his/her theoretical and practical knowledge to the best development of Law and the administration of Justice.
Art. 36. It is the judge’s duty to act so that the institution to which he/she belongs offers the means for his/her training to be permanent.
CHAPTER XI
DIGNITY, HONOR AND DECORUM
Art. 37. The judge is prohibited from engaging in conduct incompatible with the dignity, honor, and decorum of his/her functions.
Art. 38. The judge must not engage in business activity, except as a shareholder or partner and provided that he/she does not exercise control or management.
Art. 39. Any act or behavior by the judge, in professional practice, that implies unjust or arbitrary discrimination against any person or institution is offensive to the dignity of the office.
CHAPTER XII
FINAL PROVISIONS
Art. 40. The provisions of this Code complement the functional duties of judges arising from the Federal Constitution, the Statute of the Magistracy, and other legal provisions.
Art. 41. Brazilian Courts, upon the swearing-in of any Judge, shall deliver to him/her a copy of the National Judiciary Code of Ethics, for faithful observance throughout the entire time of judicial service.
Art. 42. This Code comes into force, throughout the national territory, on the date of its publication, and it is incumbent upon the National Council of Justice to promote its wide dissemination.
Brasília, August 26, 2008.
National Council of Justice
Address: SAF SUL Quadra 2 Lotes 5/6
ZIP Code: 70070-600
Phone: (61) 2326-5000
CNPJ: 07.421.906/0001-29
** Access to Information
** Virtual Counter
** Staff Space
** Contacts
** Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
I kept all article numbering, headings, and original formatting exactly as in the source, translating only the text literally without summarizing or adapting.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário