ATA DO XXXVII FONAJE

ATA DO XXXVII FONAJE - FÓRUM NACIONAL DE JUIZADOS ESPECIAIS "20 anos de compromisso com a conciliação e novos desafios" Florianópolis-SC, de 27 a 29 de maio de 2015

Às dezenove horas e quarenta minutos do dia vinte e sete de maio de 2015, no Hotel Costão do Santinho (Salão Açores), na cidade de Florianópolis-SC, iniciou-se a Cerimônia de Abertura do Trigésimo Sétimo Fórum Nacional de Juizados Especiais. Os presentes foram convidados a prestigiar a abertura do evento de maneira informal, sem a formação da tradicional mesa de honra, registrando-se a presença das seguintes autoridades: Desembargador Nelson Juliano Schaefer Martins, Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina; Juiz Gustavo Alberto Gastal Diefenthäler (TJRS), Presidente do Fonaje; Desembargador Pedro Carlos Bitencourt Marcondes, Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça de Minas Gerais; Desembargador Paulo Vasconcelos, Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça do Paraná; Desembargador Aristóteles Tury, representante da Presidência do Tribunal de Justiça do Amazonas; Desembargador Jaime Ramos, Coordenador do Conselho Gestor dos Juizados Especiais e Programas Alternativos de Solução de Conflito do Estado de Santa Catarina; Desembargadora Janice Goulart Garcia Ubialli, Subcoordenadora dos Juizados Especiais de Santa Catarina; Juiz Substituto em 2º Grau Ricardo Cunha Chimenti, representante do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo; Sérgio Junckes, Vice-Presidente da Associação dos Magistrados Brasileiros – AMB; Odson Cardoso, Presidente da Associação dos Magistrados Catarinenses; André Luiz Dacol, representante da Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil - OAB-SC; Tenente Coronel Nevel da Policia Militar; Mister John Matthews, Juiz Distrital na Inglaterra. Registrou-se também a presença de juízes e desembargadores de todos os Estados e do Distrito Federal, com exceção de Roraima. Em seguida, foi executado o hino nacional, interpretado pelo barítono Giovane Pacheco, acompanhado pela sua banda de música. Na sequência, o Presidente do Fonaje, Dr. Gustavo Alberto Gastal Diefenthäler (TJRS), deu as boas-vindas aos presentes e ressaltou que os Juizados Especiais foram e são precursores deste momento em que se busca um novo modelo de enfrentamento de litígios, enfatizando que a Justiça brasileira precisa ser contagiada com esse "vírus que os Juizados Especiais já carregam em seu DNA desde sua criação, em 1995" (Anexo 1). Passada a palavra ao Desembargador Nelson Juliano Schaefer Martins, Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina, ele agradeceu o privilégio de sediar o Fórum Nacional de Juizados Especiais, deu as boas-vindas aos participantes e destacou a importância do combate sem tréguas à cultura da litigiosidade, informando que "Santa Catarina registrou o ingresso de 250 mil novas ações nos Juizados Especiais nos últimos 15 meses” e advertindo que “é um desafio enorme dar conta dessa demanda". Dada a palavra ao Coordenador Estadual do Sistema de Juizados Especiais do TJSC, Desembargador Jaime Ramos, ele externou a honra e a satisfação de receber os participantes do Fonaje, relatou brevemente a história da cidade-sede e cobrou investimentos na melhor estruturação dos Juizados Especiais e pregou harmonização com outros programas alternativos já existentes; agradeceu especialmente à Desembargadora Janice Goulart Garcia Ubialli – Subcoordenadora dos Juizados Especiais de Santa Catarina. O juiz Sérgio Junckes, Vice-Presidente da Associação dos Magistrados Brasileiros (AMB), garantiu apoio às reivindicações de melhores condições para atuação dos Juizados Especiais no país, afirmando que "A AMB está irmanada ao Fonaje em busca do aprimoramento constante do sistema em sua luta na superação dos principais desafios". Na sequência, logo após a leitura de seu currículo pelo cerimonialista, o juiz inglês John Matthews proferiu palestra a uma plateia de cerca de 400 magistrados brasileiros, intitulada “The Courts of England and Wales: a look at the small claims”. Ele relatou sua experiência de juiz distrital na Inglaterra, país em que 60% das demandas tramitam nas chamadas small claims (pequenas causas), e garantiu que “é muito melhor tentar e negociar um acordo com os seus oponentes"; afirmou também que sempre diz às pessoas que “propor uma ação judicial deveria ser sua última alternativa” (Anexo 2). Em seguida, houve uma apresentação cultural, que recordou a história da colonização de Santa Catarina, e foi servido um jantar, que proporcionou aos convidados um momento de confraternização. No dia vinte e oito de maio de 2015, às oito horas e trinta minutos, iniciou-se o credenciamento. Às nove horas e trinta minutos iniciaram-se os debates. No Salão São Miguel formou-se a mesa com a participação dos debatedores: Desembargadores Ricardo Cunha Chimenti (SP) e Pedro Manoel Abreu (SC); Juiz de Direito de Segundo Grau Paulo Henrique Moritz da Silva (SC), com o tema: “Juizado Especial Cível. Conciliação. Repercussão das alterações do Novo CPC no Sistema dos Juizados Especiais. Desafios decorrentes da ampliação de competência na Lei dos Juizados da Fazenda Pública (Lei 12.153/09). Outros desafios”. Simultaneamente, no Salão Ilha Terceira, formou-se a mesa com os debatedores: Desembargador Joaquim de Almeida Neto (RJ) e Promotores de Justiça Fábio Rodrigues Franco Lima (SP) e Pedro Henrique Demercian (SP), com o Tema: “Juizado Especial Criminal. Novos Caminhos para a Justiça Especializada”. Às onze horas, fez-se um intervalo e, às onze horas e quinze minutos, continuaram os debates com interação com a plateia. Após o almoço, foi lançado o Manual de Procedimentos da Fazenda Pública pelos Juízes Davidson Jahn Mello, Carlos Roberto da Silva e Edison Zimmer. Às quatorze horas e trinta minutos, procedeu-se à separação dos Grupos de Trabalhos Temáticos, assim divididos: GRUPO 1 – CÍVEL - Salão São Miguel. Presidência: Juízes Antônio Augusto Baggio e Ubaldo (SC) e Lilian Telles de Sá Vieira (SC). Convidado: Juiz Marcos Alexandre Bronzatto Pagan (SP). Debates dos enunciados propostos. GRUPO 2 – CRIMINAL - Salão Ilha Terceira. Presidência: Juízes Mauro Ferrandin (SC) e Jaber Farah Filho (SC). Convidado: Juiz Mario Roberto Kono de Oliveira (MT). Tema: “Destinação de Verbas das Penas Alternativas”, apresentado pelo Juiz Décio Menna Barreto de Araújo Filho; Projeto Novos Caminhos (FIESC), apresentado por Maria Antônia Amboni. GRUPO 3 - FAZENDA PÚBLICA - Salão Pico. Presidência: Juízes Davidson Jahn Mello (SC), Carlos Roberto da Silva (SC) e Edison Zimmer (SC). Convidado: Juiz de Direito em Segundo Grau Ricardo Cunha Chimentti. Apresentado Projeto de Lei - Programa de redução de litigiosidade e Protesto de CDA e de Sentença (Anoreg). Presenças de destaque: Desembargador Nelson Schaefer Martins, Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina; Deputado Estadual Darci de Matos, representando o presidente da Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de Santa Catarina; Desembargador Jaime Ramos, Coordenador do Conselho Gestor dos Juizados Especiais e Programas Alternativos de Solução de Conflito César Souza Júnior, Prefeito de Florianópolis; Neimar Paludo, representando o Tribunal de Contas do Estado de Santa Catarina; Juíza de Direito de Segundo Grau Cinthia Beatriz da Silva Bittencourt Schaefer, Subcoordenadora dos Programas Alternativos de Solução de Conflitos; Deputado Estadual Silvio Dreveck, ex-prefeito do Município de São Bento do Sul; Sisi Blind, Vice-Presidente da Federação Catarinense dos Municípios – Fecam e Prefeita do Município de São Cristóvão do Sul; Ilton Norberto Rôbel Filho, representando a Associação dos Notários e Registradores de Santa Catarina. Após discursos das autoridades presentes, o Prefeito de Florianópolis assinou projeto de lei destinado à redução de litigiosidade no Município. A representante da Federação Catarinense dos Municípios – Fecam assinou carta de intenções em igual sentido. Por fim, houve debate sobre o Manual de Procedimentos da Fazenda Pública, cuja disponibilização no site do Fonaje foi aprovada. GRUPO 4 - TURMAS RECURSAIS E DE UNIFORMIZAÇÃO ESTADUAL - Salão Flores I e II. Presidência: Juízes Márcio Rocha Cardoso (SC), Marcos Bigolin (SC) e Maria do Carmo Honorio (SP). Debates dos enunciados e de proposições à Comissão Legislativa. Os Grupos discutiram os temas respectivos, cujas conclusões foram apresentadas no dia seguinte (conforme abaixo). No dia vinte e nove de maio de 2015, às nove horas e trinta minutos, nos Salões São Miguel e Ilha Terceira, o Desembargador José Renato Nalini, Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça e do Conselho Supervisor dos Juizados Especiais do Estado de São Paulo, proferiu palestra intitulada “O Juiz e a Justiça”, propondo uma reflexão sobre as mutações sociais e éticas da sociedade contemporânea e suas influências no cotidiano do juiz. Em seguida, o Ministro do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, Marco Aurélio Buzzi, ressaltou a importância do Sistema dos Juizados Especiais no Brasil. Na sequência, a Secretária Nacional do Consumidor, Juliana Pereira da Silva, apresentou o serviço público consumidor.gov.br, ferramenta virtual de solução de conflitos que se dá sem intermediação estatal; e assinou com o Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina um termo de cooperação, que prevê parceria entre as instituições para ampliar a divulgação de serviço a partir da mencionada plataforma consumidor.gov.br – cujo objetivo é reduzir, prevenir e solucionar conflitos nas relações de consumo em todo o território nacional, com a divulgação de um ranking que registra percentuais de positividade entre as empresas, classificadas por área de atuação (Anexo 3). A seguir, o Juiz Jayme Martins de Oliveira Neto, presidente da Associação Paulista dos Magistrados-Apamagis, destacou a importância da união de esforços na defesa dos princípios dos Juizados Especiais e se colocou à disposição do Fonaje para contribuir com os esforços perante o Congresso Nacional, conclamando as associações dos outros Estados a prestarem igual colaboração. Logo depois, o representante da Softplan, Senhor Alexandre Golin Krammes, explanou sobre os desafios do peticionamento em tempos de processo eletrônico. Ato contínuo, foi instalada a Assembleia Geral e passou-se à discussão e à votação dos enunciados e outras proposições. GRUPO 1 - CÍVEL. Foram apresentadas e votadas as seguintes matérias: 1. Proposta de modificação do Enunciado 6. Redação atual: “Não é necessária a presença do juiz Togado ou Leigo na Sessão de Conciliação.” Nova redação: “Não é necessária a presença do juiz togado ou leigo na Sessão de Conciliação, nem a do juiz togado na audiência de instrução conduzida por juiz leigo.” – Proposta aprovada, por maioria, observado o quórum especial; 2. Proposta de Moção: “Com o objetivo de garantir a celeridade e o caráter social do Sistema dos Juizados Especiais, conforme preconiza a Lei 9.099/95, o Fonaje vem a público manifestar-se contrariamente a qualquer medida administrativa que implique a ampliação de competência, sobretudo em razão da edição de resoluções, em alguns Tribunais de Justiça, que atribuam aos Juizados Especiais Cíveis a competência dos Juizados Especiais da Fazenda Pública, ainda não instalados, precipuamente em função das recomendações dispostas no art. 20 do Provimento 22, da Corregedoria-Nacional de Justiça, editado em 05/09/2012.” – Proposta aprovada, por aclamação. GRUPO 2 – CRIMINAL. Foram apresentadas e votadas as seguintes matérias: 1. Proposta de alteração do Enunciado 44: Redação atual: “No caso de transação penal homologada e não cumprida, o decurso do prazo prescricional provoca a declaração de extinção de punibilidade pela prescrição da pretensão executória”. Nova redação: “No caso de transação penal homologada e não cumprida, o decurso do prazo prescricional provoca a declaração de extinção de punibilidade pela prescrição da pretensão punitiva.” – Proposta aprovada, por unanimidade; 2. Proposta de revogação do Enunciado 84: “Em caso de ausência injustificada do usuário de drogas à audiência de aplicação da pena de advertência, cabe sua condução coercitiva” – Proposta aprovada, por maioria, observado o quórum especial; 3. Proposta de revogação do Enunciado 120: “O concurso de infrações de menor potencial ofensivo não afasta a competência do Juizado Especial Criminal, ainda que o somatório das penas, em abstrato, ultrapasse dois anos”. Proposta rejeitada, por maioria; 4. Proposta de criação de enunciado: “A condenação por infração ao artigo 28 da Lei 11.343/06 não enseja registro para efeitos de antecedentes criminais e reincidência.” – Proposta aprovada, por maioria. GRUPO 3 - FAZENDA PÚBLICA. Não foram apresentadas propostas de enunciados ou outras proposições. O Juiz Davidson Jahn Mello (TJSC) apresentou um Manual de Procedimento dos Juizados Especiais da Fazenda Pública do Tribunal de Justiça de Santa Catarina, que será disponibilizado no site do Fonaje, a título de contribuição para a tentativa de uniformização do procedimento. GRUPO 4 - TURMAS RECURSAIS E UNIFORMIZAÇÃO ESTADUAL; GESTÃO E INOVAÇÕES. Foram apresentadas as seguintes propostas de encaminhamentos à Comissão Legislativa: 1. Expedição de ofício aos Tribunais de Justiça sugerindo que, na hipótese de processos que tramitam sob o rito da Lei 9.099/95, atribua-se competência à Turma de Uniformização dos Juizados Especiais ou à Turma Recursal única para o julgamento de incidente (de resolução) de demanda repetitiva; 2. Expedição de ofício aos Tribunais de Justiça sugerindo que, no âmbito dos Tribunais de Justiça, o Presidente da Turma de Uniformização dos Juizados Especiais integre órgão deliberativo de incidente de demanda repetitiva; 3. Sugestão para que, no âmbito da Comissão Legislativa, seja formado um grupo de trabalho para elaboração de proposta de alteração dos regimentos internos das Turmas de Uniformização com vistas à unificação e à adequação do procedimento do pedido de uniformização na forma prevista no art. 20 da Lei 12.153/09; 4. Sugestão para que a Comissão Legislativa elabore proposta de projeto de lei que institui o depósito recursal, em forma similar à prevista na Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho; COMISSÃO LEGISLATIVA: O presidente da Comissão Legislativa, Ricardo Cunha Chimenti (TJSP), noticiou que, na Comissão de Constituição e Justiça e de Cidadania, o Relator, Dep. Veneziano Vital do Rêgo (PMDB-PB), apresentou parecer pela admissibilidade da Proposta de Emenda à Constituição nº 389, de 2014, da Deputada Carmen Zanotto – PPS/SC, que inclui advogados na composição nas Turmas Recursais de forma similar ao Quinto Constitucional; e ressaltou que a Comissão Legislativa está atenta à sua tramitação. Quanto ao projeto de lei que visa à alteração do art. 69 da Lei nº 9.099/95, solicitou que o Fonaje manifeste o seu apoio ou não para a seguinte alteração legislativa: “O policial que tomar conhecimento da ocorrência lavrará termo circunstanciado e o encaminhará imediatamente ao Juizado, com o autor do fato e a vítima, providenciando-se as requisições dos exames periciais necessários”. Após intensos debates, não foi obtido consenso para o apoio ou não ao projeto. Em seguida, o Presidente do Fonaje, Doutor Gustavo Alberto Gastal Diefenthäler (TJRS), agradeceu a calorosa recepção e elogiou a qualidade do evento de Florianópolis-SC, parabenizando os organizadores nas pessoas dos Desembargadores Nelson Schaefer Martins, Jaime Ramos e Janice Goulart Garcia Ubialli. Prosseguindo com os trabalhos, foi aclamada sede do XXXVIII FONAJE a cidade de Belo Horizonte/MG; e a Juíza Lilian Maciel (TJMG) agradeceu a confiança e convidou os fonajeanos a participar do evento em seu Estado, apresentando um vídeo institucional. Em seguida, após sorteio de livros, o Presidente do Fonaje procedeu à leitura da “Carta de Florianópolis” (Anexo 4), enfatizando a importância dos critérios informadores dos Juizados Especiais (que devem ser observados pelos operadores do Sistema no caso de aplicação subsidiária de norma geral) e informando que a escolha do tema para o próximo encontro nacional deve ser o de reafirmação do compromisso do Fonaje em não permitir que eventual aplicação subsidiária do Novo Código de Processo Civil comprometa os avanços conquistados pelo Sistema dos Juizados Especiais. A organização do XXXVII FONAJE, na pessoa do Desembargador Jaime Ramos, agradeceu a presença de todos e ressaltou a felicidade e o orgulho de organizar este importante evento; e convidou todos para o jantar de confraternização na Tenda das Piscinas, às 20 horas. Na sequência, o Presidente do Fonaje encerrou os trabalhos, reafirmando o seu compromisso de defender a autonomia do Sistema dos Juizados Especiais. E, para constar, encerrou-se e lavrou-se a presente ata, que foi preparada por mim, Juíza Maria do Carmo Honorio (TJSP), Secretária-Geral, e pelo Juiz Gustavo Alberto Gastal Diefenthäler (TJRS), Presidente do Fonaje, e revisada pelo Juiz Marcos Alexandre Bronzatto Pagan (TJSP). Florianópolis, Estado de Santa Catarina, 29 de maio de 2015.

ANEXO 1 RESUMO DO DISCURSO DO DOUTOR GUSTAVO ALBERTO GASTAL DIEFENTHÄLER (TJRS) - ABERTURA DO XXXVII FONAJE

1. Após saudações protocolares, homenagem à colega Janice e, logo a seguir, saudação específica ao palestrante Mr. John Mathews, Juiz Britânico, o Presidente abordou os seguintes tópicos:

2. JEs há pelo menos 20 anos manejam a conciliação, sendo os precursores de todo esse novo momento vivido pelo PJ, de fuga da ortodoxia da jurisdição; participação ativa e decisiva dos JEs e FONAJE na criação do movimento pela conciliação/semana da conciliação-CNJ;

3. população confia nos JEs; altos índices de aprovação; não só pela conciliação, mas também pela gratuidade, simplicidade, informalidade, efetividade (alto grau de cumprimento das decisões) e especialmente a celeridade (que será sempre mais facilmente alcançada se os TJs contarem em seus quadros com JLs e conciliadores);

4. a realidade da maioria das comarcas brasileiras; JEs com estrutura deficiente; na prática, inexistem fisicamente, tratando-se então de mera aplicação de um rito, o que por si só já significa muito na comparação com os procedimentos formais do CPC;

5. preocupação com a competência plena dos juizados fazendários, em junho/2015;

6. a crise econômica e as limitações orçamentárias exigem criatividade por parte dos TJs e dos magistrados;

7. posto o que consta acima, necessidade urgente de alterar e aperfeiçoar a Res. 125/CNJ, para desencorajar os TJs à mistura dos processos e procedimentos da justiça comum com os dos JEs e não piorar as deficiências estruturais dos JEs com seu uso pelos CEJUSCs; preservar os JEs;

8. a conciliação nos JEs é critério informador e fase procedimental indispensável, por isso não se admitindo que seja suprimida do rito mediante sua realização fora do âmbito dos JEs;

9. FONAJE e magistrados do sistema são absolutamente favoráveis à utilização da conciliação, mediação e justiça restaurativa pelos demais ramos do PJ, colocando-se à disposição, com sua expertise, para auxiliar na formulação de políticas e rotinas para a sua definitiva implantação;

10. tudo o que acima foi dito justifica o tema do XXXVII encontro: 20 ANOS DE COMPROMISSO COM A CONCILIAÇÃO E NOVOS DESAFIOS;

11. declara aberto o XXXVII FONAJE.

Gustavo Alberto Gastal Diefenthäler (TJRS) – Presidente Fonaje

ANEXO 2 RESUMO DA PALESTRA DO JUIZ INGLÊS JOHN MATTHEWS : “THE COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES - A look at small claims”

Opening remarks: to express thanks for this invitation to speak, etc, etc

In February Judge Monhoz wrote to the International Office of the Judicial Secretariat about this National Forum of your Small Claims Courts and to request the attendance of a Judge to give a talk about small claims in our country.

Usually, when the International Office receives a request for a Judge to speak at an important and prestigious meeting such as this one, the first thought is to consider a very high ranking Judge, a Judge from our Supreme Court, our Court of Appeal or our High Court. Although I have no doubt that such a high ranking Judge would have been delighted to visit your beautiful country, they would have had some difficulty giving a talk about small claims. They have no experience of small claims cases.

Their lack of experience is my good fortune, as the invitation was referred to me, a District Judge with 27 years experience as a Judge of small claims hearings, and here I am and here is my talk.

SLIDE 1

The title of my talk was chosen by someone else. Judge Munhoz asked me for a title, but I was too slow in replying. The programme was printed and someone else gave a title to my talk. I would like to thank and to congratulate that person who did, because I could not have given a better title myself. I suspect that the title was chosen by someone with knowledge of our legal system, as it is entirely accurate.

The Courts of England and Wales

The United Kingdom is made up of 4 countries, England, Scotland (who almost voted in a referendum last year to leave the United Kingdom to become an independent country), Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Northern Ireland each has their own separate and distinct legal system and their own judiciary. England and Wales have the one shared legal system and judiciary.

A look at small claims

The author of the title was correct in not referring to a “Small Claims Court” because there is no such thing in our country. The Court with jurisdiction to hear small claims is the County Court. The County Court has jurisdiction in civil and family cases and small claims is one of the categories of claims that the County Court deals with. I am now going to introduce you to a Judge of the County Court.

SLIDE 2

That Judge is me. I hope you will be able to see which one of the two judges shown is me. I am on the left with the blue bands, which denote a District Judge. On the right is Mr Justice Singh with the red bands which denote a High Court Judge. This photograph was taken at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand in London and the occasion was my “swearing in” as a District Judge. Our full title is Her Majesty’s District Judge. We are appointed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and at home I have the warrant of my appointment signed personally by Her Majesty. However, before we can begin our work as District Judges we have to swear two oaths at a formal ceremony. One is the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen and the other is the Judicial Oath and by the Judicial Oath we promise to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will”. These oaths are taken in public in open Court and are received by a senior Judge, in my case Mr Justice Singh. Family and friends of the Judge being sworn in attend, as can any member of the public, and there is a reception with refreshments afterwards.

It will not surprise you that the Queen does not personally choose her District Judges. Experienced practising lawyers apply to a Judicial Appointments Commission, whose Commissioners are drawn from the judiciary, the legal profession and members of the public. The Commission holds “Selection Exercises” or competitions. Practising lawyers who are successful are first appointed as “Deputy District Judges” who are part-time Judges who undertake between 20 and 50 sittings a year, whilst they continue with their practice as lawyers. After a number of years as a Deputy, the Deputy can enter a selection exercise to be appointed a District Judge and if he succeeds, the Commission recommends him or her to Her Majesty for appointment. Once appointed and sworn in, the District Judge cannot continue to practice as a lawyer, and indeed cannot be engaged in any other paid employment at all.

This process means that it is very rare indeed for someone to be appointed a District Judge at a younger age than their mid-forties. This is in contrast to the Judiciary in some European countries, such as France, where a judicial career is quite separate and distinct from a career as a lawyer. In France you attend a college for judges and can be appointed as a Judge in your mid-twenties.

Now I am going to introduce you to the County Court. There is just the one County Court for England and Wales but this Court has court buildings in cities and towns all over the country. Even quite small towns can have a County Court centre, though in recent years there have been a number of closures of the smaller court centres with cases going to nearby larger towns and cities. I am based at the County Court sitting at Peterborough, a city 75 miles due north of London with a population of just under 200,000.

SLIDE 3

This is not the County Court, but I thought you would like to see a photograph of Peterborough Cathedral, in the city centre.

SLIDE 4

This is the County Court, which is just a short walk away from the Cathedral.

SLIDE 5

Here I am in my room. I hear nearly all of my cases in this modest sized room, which we call Chambers. If I look through the window to my left I can see the Cathedral, a really splendid sight.

You will see that we do not wear our robes and wig when doing our daily work. These are now only worn on ceremonial occasions.

You will see the Royal Coat of Arms on the wall at the back, as a badge of authority for all to see and a reminder to the Judge of his Oath of Allegiance and Judicial Oath.

On the desk you will see that I have my computer and you will also see the microphones, as all the hearings that we conduct are recorded from start to finish.

As I said I hear nearly all of my cases in this room. Very occasionally, I may need to use a courtroom within the building if the case I am hearing involves too many people to fit into my small room.

SLIDE 6

This is a typical courtroom with the Judge behind a bench on a raised platform, or dais, and much more room for the litigants, their lawyers and members of the public. You can see the witness box on the left. But now back to my room.

SLIDE 7

This is the view that I have in my Chambers. On the blue chairs immediately in front of me will sit the parties to the claim, with their lawyers if they have them. Sometimes the parties have two lawyers, one a barrister, a specialist advocate and the other, a solicitor, who will have prepared the case for them and then instructed the barrister to present the case in court. The second lawyer will sit at the table behind.

You will see a single brown chair at the very back of the room. This is a very important chair, particularly in relation to the hearing of small claims and I wonder if anyone knows who this chair is for.

This chair is there for any member of the public who would like to be present during the final hearing of the small claim. These final hearings of small claims are held in public and any member of the public is entitled to attend. There is only the one chair because it is very rare that any member of the public wants to be present. If more than one person wishes to be there we will provide other chairs or even move to the courtroom if necessary.

Although I say that it is very rare that anyone wants to see small claims hearings, it does happen, as the next slide will demonstrate.

SLIDE 8

This was an article which appeared on the BBC News website on 9th October 2013. A similar article appeared on the front page of a number of local and national newspapers the next morning. The BBC article begins “A train operator’s legal pursuit of a commuter over a ticket loophole was “unreasonable”, a judge has ruled. This report did not actually name the Judge, but that Judge was in fact me and my name did appear in the newspapers the next morning.

The County Court at St Albans where this hearing took place is smaller than the one at Peterborough. It has only one District Judge, whereas there are 3 of us at Peterborough. On this particular day, that District Judge was on leave and I had agreed to take his day’s cases for him. I did not know what cases were in the list until I arrived at St Albans that morning and I was interested to see that there was a small claims hearing of a claim brought by a gentleman against a train operator, First Capital Connect. This company operated the commuter trains from St Albans, which is just outside London and to the north-west, into the City of London.

When I reached this particular case in my list, the usher came in to my chambers to inform me that the Claimant, the gentleman bringing the claim, was here and was representing himself. The Defendant, the train company, was represented by a barrister. The usher was rather flustered and she explained to me that there were also several newspaper and TV journalists here who wanted to hear the claim. The Claimant very much wanted them to come in, whereas the Defendant’s barrister wanted me to exclude them.

The Defendant’s barrister will have realised that he had no hope of persuading me that I should exclude the press and TV and I told the usher to remind the parties that small claims hearings take place in public and to tell all concerned that whoever wished to come in was welcome to do so. So the hearing went ahead with a row of journalists sitting at the back of the chambers.

Time does not permit me to go into great detail about the case, and this is not a case which is typical of the many cases that I have to hear, but you may be interested to know what it was that so interested the newspapers and the BBC.

The Claimant lived in St Albans and travelled in daily by train to the City of London where he worked. He caught the train each morning at St Albans station, and he travelled with a season ticket which he purchased each year. This particular year, he decided to buy his season ticket online and went on to the Defendant’s website to do this. Being a resourceful man, he searched their website thoroughly for the best deal. He discovered that the cost of a season ticket from Watford, a town about 6 miles away from St Albans and on a different railway line into London, was £700 cheaper than a ticket from St Albans. He then went on to the National Rail website and discovered that people travelling from Watford could, if they wished, travel via St Albans. So what he did was to buy online the cheaper ticket from Watford, but of course, he continued to catch the train at his home station of St Albans.

All went well for a while, but then one morning a ticket inspector refused to allow the Claimant to travel. When the Claimant showed him a print out of the National Rail website, he still refused him access to the station, saying the website must be wrong.

Of course, the Claimant still had to get to work each morning, so what he did was to buy another season ticket. He then sued the train operator in the County Court and because the amount involved was less than £5,000.00 it was a small claim.

To cut a long story short, the train operator defended the claim but eventually discovered that the National Rail website was showing the Watford-St Albans route as a valid one for travel into London. Some few days before 9th October 2013, the date of the hearing at the County Court in St Albans, the train operator wrote to the Claimant and offered to settle his claim in full, but only if he would agree to keep the settlement private. The Claimant rejected the offer, believing that there was a “public interest in the claim being heard”, as he later told the BBC reporter.

So the train operator’s lawyer trying to persuade me to exclude the public from the hearing was no doubt a last attempt to avoid publicity. I suspect that the train operator was playing for time, wanting to secure a change to the National Rail website before every commuter living in St Albans had the chance to buy a cheaper season ticket.

But let us move on.

SLIDE 9

A small claim can sometimes come to the public’s attention for two reasons. The first reason is that the claim raises a point of law, how a particular legal principle is to be interpreted and applied. The second reason is that this point of law can affect thousands, even millions of people.

On this slide are two such cases which were, at the beginning, small claims. The first was a claim for an £85.00 car parking charge for staying longer than the permitted time; the second was a claim for £300.00 compensation for a delayed airline flight. Time does not permit me to go into detail about these cases, other than to tell you that they both resulted in an appeal being made against the decision of the District Judge (not me in these particular cases) which so far has found its way up to the Court of Appeal. I do not expect that the appeals will go any further than this, either to the Supreme Court, or even to the European Court of Justice, but we must leave them there.

SLIDE 10

So how does a claim come to be dealt with by the small claims procedure? It does not start life as a small claim. It only becomes a small claim when a District Judge makes an order to that effect. I will explain how that happens.

The vast majority of civil claims are brought in the County Court. There is in fact no financial limit on its jurisdiction, but claims of exceptionally high value might be brought in the High Court and there are certain types of case, though very few, such as defamation, which have to be heard in the High Court. Apart from these few exceptions which have to be in the High Court, claims can be transferred from the County Court to the High Court and vice versa, that is from the High Court to the County Court, if a Judge so decides.

A County Court claim can nowadays only be issued in one of two places, either in Salford, which is in Manchester, or in Northampton, which is some 40 miles from my court at Peterborough. If you want to make a claim on paper, you have to send the claim form to Salford. If you want to start the claim on line, your claim will be processed at Northampton. There is a court fee to pay to issue the claim. You are encouraged to claim on line as the court fees are lower than for paper claims. This slide shows a paper claim form. You fill this in with your details, those of the Defendant, brief particulars of the claim, fuller particulars of the claim on the back of the form, or you can attach particulars of claim if there is not sufficient room on the form. You insert the amount of the claim in the box, then the court fee and, if a lawyer is acting for you and prepares the form for you, a very modest amount of legal costs, typically less than £100, depending on the amount of the claim. You then do a copy of the claim form for each Defendant, if there is more than one (which the Court will use to send to the Defendants) and send the forms to Salford together with your payment for the Court fee. You should of course retain a copy for yourself.

SLIDE 11

This is the website for making your claim online. You first have to register to obtain an identification number. This does not cost anything. Once you have registered, you can complete your claim form, which is similar in appearance to the paper one. You submit the claim online and pay the court fee either by credit or debit card.

SLIDE 12

I am assuming now that you are claiming against just the one Defendant. The County Court will then send a copy of your claim form to the Defendant together with what is called a Defence Pack. The Defendant then has 14 days from the day he receives the forms to acknowledge the claim by sending one of these forms back to the Court.

If he fails to send the acknowledgment form back, you can apply for judgment by default for the amount of your claim and the court fee and any fixed legal costs.

If the Defendant acknowledges the claim and says that he admits part of it but disputes the rest, the Court will contact you and ask you whether you accept the part admission. If you do, judgment will be given to you for the admitted part and your claim is concluded.

If you do not accept the part admission or if the Defendant acknowledges the claim by saying that he disputes all of it, then the Defendant has a further 14 days (that is 28 days from the day he received the claim) to send his defence to the Court.

The Defendant may claim that you owe him money and bring a counterclaim against you, which you will need to send a defence to in the same way that the Defendant has defended your claim against him.

SLIDE 13

If the claim is defended, the County Court centre at Salford or Northampton has only one further task to perform. That task is to send to you and to the Defendant a notice that the claim is defended together with a form called a Directions Questionnaire which you will both be required to complete. The claim is then transferred to the County Court centre which is nearest to where the Defendant resides (unless the Defendant is a company when it will go to the centre nearest the Claimant).

So assuming the Defendant is a person and not a company and that he lives in the Peterborough area, the court file will be sent to the County Court at Peterborough. The notice to the parties will instruct them to send the Directions Questionnaire to Peterborough.

Let us assume that the Directions Questionnaires are received by the Court. Next slide please.

SLIDE 14

Here we are back in Chambers A and I am doing what we call “Boxwork”. There is no one with me in chambers, of course, and I have to find the time to do this as well as hearing my cases. The court files, including the Directions Questionnaires are brought up to me to undertake what we call “case management”. There are three essential aids for this work; the Civil Procedure Rules, my computer and, as I am an English Judge, a plentiful supply of tea! This is the very first time that the case will have been considered by a Judge, everything having been done before now by a member of the court staff, at Salford or Northampton and at Peterborough.

I do have the power to bring the case to an end there and then. If I consider that either the claim or the defence has no hope of succeeding I can strike it out. The Claimant can then enter his judgment if I strike out the defence. If I strike out the claim, that is the end of the claim. My order is then sent to the parties. However, because my order has been made without the parties being present and being able to argue against my decision, the order will tell them that they have the right to apply to set aside my order, providing they send in that application within 7 days. They will then be granted a hearing before a District Judge.

Let us assume, however, that I do not make any “strike out” orders and that the claim is to proceed.

I will look very carefully at the claim and the defence and the parties’ replies to the Directions Questionnaires. If the claim is for less than £10,000.00, which is the present limit for small claims, the staff will have sent a Small Claims Directions Questionnaire to the parties. This is a very straightforward form with just 6 questions, only 3 of which I will mention now; (i) Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for this case? (ii) Are you asking for the court’s permission to use the written evidence of an expert? (iii) How many witnesses, including yourself, will give evidence on your behalf at the hearing?

The most usual replies to the these questions are; (i) Yes. (ii) No. (iii) One.

The parties to a dispute for a small amount of money usually want the case put on the small claims “track”. The common use of the word “track” is to describe what trains run on, but in the context of a court claim, to allocate it to the small claims track simply means that it is to be dealt with under the special procedure for small claims. This procedure has the main aim of encouraging the parties to bring or to defend a claim by themselves, without the involvement of lawyers. This is done firstly, by making the procedure for these claims easier to follow and less formal and secondly, by a rule that if a party decides that he wants to instruct and be represented by a lawyer, then he may do so, but even if he wins the case, the losing party will not be ordered to pay to him the costs of that lawyer. You bring a claim for £100 and your lawyer tells you it will cost you £500 in legal fees if he acts for you. If you know that if you win your case you will get judgment for £100, but you will have to pay the lawyer the £500 yourself, you are going to do the case yourself if you think you can.

Most small claims do not need the evidence of an expert to assist the Judge in deciding the case at the final hearing. A few claims do, however, and in such cases, the District Judge is likely to require the parties to attend court for a short preliminary hearing to discuss whether an expert’s report is required and, if so, how it is to be obtained.

As for witnesses, often there will be just the two witnesses, the two parties themselves. It is helpful to the District Judge to know if either party intends to call any other witness or witnesses as this will affect the estimate of the time required for the final hearing of the case which the judge has to give.

SLIDE 15

My task, after carefully considering the claim, the defence and the replies to the questionnaire, is to make a court order putting the case on, or “allocating to” as we refer to it, one of the “tracks”, either the small claims track or one of the other two tracks usually reserved for higher value claims. Here is an example of an order. Also, within that same order I make what we call “case management directions” which are tasks that the parties must complete by a certain date to ensure that the case is ready for the hearing of the claim. Finally, I will include in the order a time estimate for the hearing, which for a small claim is typically anything between one and three hours. The court staff will then check the court diary and will list the case for a final hearing, ensuring that sufficient time is allowed for the parties to comply with the case management directions.

The case management directions usually require the parties to disclose to each other any documents that they have which are relevant to the case and to exchange statements of evidence of themselves and any witnesses that they intend to call at the hearing. These statements have to be in a particular form and to be ended by a formal declaration that the witness believes that the contents of the statement are true. Copies of the documents and the witness statements have to be sent to the Court so that the Judge can read them before the final hearing begins.

So, the day finally arrives for the final hearing. The Judge will have the court file and will hope to find in it copies of all the documents and witness statements. He will read these and then call the parties in to begin the hearing. Before I start to talk to you about the hearing I should tell you that it frequently happens that one of the parties has not complied with the case management directions that were made by the allocating Judge. A party may not have prepared his witness statement, or sent a copy of his statement to the other party or to the Court. If often happens that neither party has done this.

People do not always read instructions or orders that they receive from the Court. It is sad to say that people sometimes do not show respect for the Court either. I remember reading one gentleman’s defence to a small claim which began, and I quote;

“I am not going to co-operate with anybody on this and I am not having a Mickey Mouse Judge telling me what I can or cannot pay”.

Unfortunately for him, he failed completely to say whether or not he accepted that he owed the money that was being claimed from him, so he did not get as far as a hearing, as his defence was struck out in boxwork and the Claimant was awarded judgment against him for the amount claimed.

But let us go back to the hearing when the parties are present, anxious for their day in Court and for the claim finally to be dealt with. Even if the case management directions have not been complied with, I will go ahead with the hearing if it is possible to do this fairly and within the time allowed for the hearing. Being fair is the most important consideration here. If one party has complied with the directions and their witness statements and relevant documents are all there on your file and copies have been sent to the other party, but the other party has done none of this, then it may be unfair to the former to hear the claim there and then. I might then consider striking out the claim or defence of the defaulting party or adjourning the hearing of the case to a later date, giving the defaulting party a further opportunity to do what he should have done, witness statements, documents, and so on. If he gets this chance he will almost certainly be required to pay the other party’s wasted expenses.

Let us assume now that I am to hear the case. If one or both parties are there without a lawyer, I will first explain the procedure that I am going to follow. I will tell them;

(i) that I will receive evidence from the Claimant first

(ii) that I will ask the Claimant to identify his signature on his witness statement. This statement should have what is called “a statement of truth” just above the signature, words to the effect that “I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true”

(iii) that I will ask the Claimant to confirm that the facts are true or whether he wishes to amend, clarify or expand upon what he has said in his statement

(iv) that I will then give the Defendant the opportunity to question the Claimant upon his evidence, to “cross-examine” him in other words

(v) that I will receive evidence from the Defendant in the same way, allowing the Claimant the opportunity to “cross-examine”.

You will appreciate that evidence is received much in the same way as in any court hearing. I stress to the parties that the “Golden Rule” is that neither should interrupt the other when it is the other’s turn to be speaking. I tell them that that “Golden Rule” does not apply to me as the Judge. As the person responsible for making the decision I tell them that I will interrupt as and when I feel I need to and that I will be asking them both questions about their evidence throughout. This is perhaps the distinguishing feature of our small claims procedure, the Judge taking a very active, “inquisitorial” role. This is in contrast to the more formal, “adversarial” style hearings of more valuable claims, when the parties are all represented by lawyers and questioning is left largely to the advocates and questions from the Judge are not so frequent.

I will tell the parties that once I have received the evidence, they will each have the chance to summarise that evidence for me and to make any legal points or “submissions”, before I ask them to leave the hearing room and wait in the waiting area whilst I consider my decision. The Defendant goes first with this and the Claimant has the last word.

Once I have come to a decision, I will call the parties back in and I will deliver my judgment to them there and then. I will tell them what I have decided and why. I may already have told them of the right of appeal against a District Judge’s decision when I explained the procedure at the beginning of the hearing, but if I did not then I will mention it once I have delivered my judgment.

Within a day or so of the hearing the Court staff will send a copy of the order made by me at the hearing, which will bear the Court seal on it. This confirms the decision or order made by me but does not set out my reasons. A party can apply to the Court for a full transcript of the hearing and of my judgment and from this they can read every word uttered during the course of the hearing. This is of course produced from the recording of the hearing and a fee is payable to the Court before a transcript can be provided.

I mentioned earlier that appeals from small claims decisions do occur, though they are rare, and when they do they can go through our whole appeal system to the very highest courts of the land, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, or even beyond our shores, to the European Court of Justice.

So there you have it, the progress of a small claim through the court process from start to finish. I hope that you will conclude that our procedures are designed to assist the parties to present their cases and get a fair hearing before a District Judge without having to employ very expensive lawyers to act for them. They can of course be represented by lawyers if they so wish, but at their own expense. However, I must mention that the District Judge does have the power to make an order that the losing party must pay the lawyer’s costs of the winning party in exceptional cases. This will only happen when the Judge is satisfied that the losing party has behaved unreasonably.

The fact that our small claims procedure is meant to be “user friendly” for the unrepresented party, or “Litigant in Person”, should not be taken to mean that our system positively encourages people to go to court to resolve their disputes. On the contrary, we take great pains to discourage people from going to Court. We attempt to convince them that going to Court should be seen as a very last resort. Let me quote to you from a pamphlet that is provided to a person contemplating issuing a claim in court. The pamphlet is entitled “I’m in a dispute – what can I do?”

“Going to court should always be a last resort. It can be expensive, stressful and time consuming.

Before going to court you should always try to reach an agreement. For example, if you are in a dispute with an organisation, you should use the organisation’s complaints procedure before thinking of making a claim through the court.

If you make a claim through the court without making any effort to reach an agreement first, you may find that the judge will hold this against you when considering payment of costs in the case. You may not get your costs back, or the court may order you to pay the other party’s cost, even if you win the case.

Other ways you might try to reach an agreement include processes like negotiation, mediation and arbitration. They are often more informal than the court process.”

The pamphlet goes on to explain in some detail these other ways of trying to reach agreement, pointing out the advantages that negotiation, mediation or arbitration have over going to court.

There is another attempt made to persuade parties to settle their dispute even after a claim has been started in court. You may remember the Directions Questionnaire that is sent to both parties once a defence to the claim is received by the court. I said that there were only 6 questions on the form and I explained 3 of them earlier in my talk. One of the other questions, indeed the very first question on this form is as follows;

Do you agree to this case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service?

When doing the boxwork, if I see that both parties have answered “yes” to this question, I will include in the order the following notice;

“Having considered the papers in your case, the court believes that your case is suitable for mediation. This is a very simple process designed to give you the opportunity to resolve your dispute without having to attend a court hearing. You are therefore encouraged to contact the Small Claims Mediation Service to arrange a mediation appointment. The mediation service is free.

The notice goes on to give more information about how mediation is carried out and gives instruction as to how to contact the service to arrange mediation. Time is allowed for the mediation to take place. Many claims are settled in this way and the claims withdrawn from the court process.

So, what of the future for our small claims procedure? Well, this procedure does not have a very long history. It was only introduced in the 1970s when the financial limit for a small claim was £75. This has been increased over the years, to £1,000 in 1991, £3,000 in 1996, £5,000 in 1999 and finally £10,000 in 2013. The sum of £10,000 is a substantial sum of money and today, small claims cases account for almost 70% of all hearings in the civil courts in England and Wales.

The Civil Justice Council is a public body set up by legislation to oversee and coordinate the modernisation of our civil justice system. They have recently commissioned a report and one of the recommendations in this report is that the small claims procedure should be extended to claims up to a value of £25,000. There are other recommendations in the report for an increase in the use of information technology, so that not only will claims be issued and defences filed online, as they can be now, but also that the claims should be decided by Judges online, without the need for the parties to attend.

Closing remarks: Reference to the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson and his speech on 22nd April 2015:

“We can learn from what goes on in other jurisdictions. For example, in December 2014 a new civil procedure code was approved in Brazil. It will come into force in December this year. Article 191 of the code introduces a provision which allows parties to agree to modify the procedure as it applies to their claim. It is worth thinking about whether we should adopt such a provision here so as to permit parties, with the court’s consent, to agree to opt out of certain aspects of procedure to enable their claim to be dealt with more speedily”.

Final words of thanks to all.

ANEXO 3 ACORDO DE COOPERAÇÃO TÉCNICA QUE ENTRE SI CELEBRAM A SECRETARIA NACIONAL DO CONSUMIDOR DO MINISTÉRIO DA JUSTIÇA – SENACON E O PODER JUDICIÁRIO DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA – TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA PARA ADESÃO À PLATAFORMA TECNOLÓGICA CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR.

A SECRETARIA NACIONAL DO CONSUMIDOR DO MINISTÉRIO DA JUSTIÇA, CNPJ nº 00.394.494/0001-36, situada na Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco ”T”, Brasília/DF, doravante denominada SENACON, neste ato representada por sua Secretária, JULIANA PEREIRA DA SILVA, portadora da Cédula de Identidade nº 22.899.091-9 SSP/SP, inscrita no CPF sob o nº 156.284.358-30 e o PODER JUDICIÁRIO DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA – TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA, sediado na Rua Álvaro Millen da Silveira, 208, Centro, Florianópolis/SC, doravante denominado TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA, inscrito no CNPJ sob o nº 83.845.701/0001-59, neste ato representado por seu Presidente, Desembargador NELSON SCHAEFER MARTINS, portador da Cédula de Identidade n.º 123.972 SSP/SC, inscrito no CPF sob o nº 145.162.339-91, resolvem celebrar o presente Acordo de Cooperação, que se regerá pela Lei 8.666/93, mediante as cláusulas a seguir:

Cláusula primeira – DO OBJETO Este acordo tem por objeto a cooperação técnica entre a SENACON e o TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA com vistas a promover ações conjuntas para o incentivo e o aperfeiçoamento de métodos autocompositivos de solução de conflitos de consumo voltados à redução e à prevenção dos litígios judicializados, mediante o uso da plataforma CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR.

Cláusula segunda – DAS ATRIBUIÇÕES GERAIS Os partícipes comprometem-se reciprocamente a atingir os objetivos do presente acordo, no âmbito de suas atribuições, e a atuar em colaboração na execução das seguintes ações: a) intercâmbio de informações técnicas e de apoio técnico-institucional necessários à consecução da finalidade deste acordo, excetuadas as informações de caráter sigiloso ou cuja divulgação possa causar dano a outrem; b) apoio à articulação entre os partícipes voltada para a harmonização de entendimento das questões relativas ao papel de cada um no tocante às metas e objetivos do presente acordo; c) promoção conjunta de atividades de capacitação da SENACON e do TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA, visando ao aperfeiçoamento contínuo dos partícipes; d) promoção conjunta de ações voltadas ao incentivo da participação das empresas no CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR e ao uso da ferramenta pelos consumidores como um canal alternativo para a solução de conflitos de consumo; e e) acompanhamento continuado dos indicadores e informações produzidos a partir dos atendimentos realizados na plataforma, com vistas a monitorar e avaliar a efetividade da participação das empresas no CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR.

Cláusula terceira – DAS OBRIGAÇÕES DA SENACON São obrigações da SENACON: a) assegurar que o armazenamento das informações obedeça a padrões adequados de segurança, confidencialidade e integridade; b) prestar suporte técnico e tecnológico para o adequado funcionamento da plataforma; c) comunicar imediatamente eventuais fatos relevantes que afetem este termo de Cooperação; d) garantir ao TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA acesso aos dados e informações relativos aos atendimentos realizados no CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR no âmbito do Estado de Santa Catarina; e e) viabilizar a interlocução dos atores envolvidos no CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR visando ao aperfeiçoamento da gestão da plataforma, da qualidade da informação produzida, bem como das políticas públicas voltadas à melhoria do atendimento aos consumidores.

Cláusula quarta – DAS OBRIGAÇÕES DO TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA DO ESTADO DE SANTA CATARINA São obrigações do TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA: a) divulgar no âmbito do Estado de Santa Catarina a plataforma CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR como um canal voltado à solução alternativa de conflitos de consumo; b) apoiar a SENACON nas ações voltadas ao incentivo da participação de novas empresas na plataforma, especialmente aquelas que figurem como grandes litigantes no âmbito do Estado de Santa Catarina; c) orientar os consumidores e fornecedores sempre que possível, por quaisquer de seus canais de atendimento, a respeito da finalidade e diretrizes de funcionamento do CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR; e d) contribuir com a SENACON nas ações voltadas ao continuo aprimoramento das políticas e diretrizes de funcionamento da plataforma CONSUMIDOR.GOV.BR, para que esta atinja o objetivo de funcionar como serviço voltado para solução alternativa de conflitos de consumo.

Cláusula quinta – DA EXECUÇÃO São executores do presente instrumento a SENACON e o TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA que atuarão na execução das atividades relacionadas ao presente acordo. Parágrafo único. A execução do presente Acordo será feita por programas ajustados diretamente entre a SENACON e o TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA.

Cláusula sexta – DA LEGISLAÇÃO APLICÁVEL E DA RESOLUÇÃO DOS CASOS OMISSOS O presente acordo rege-se pelas disposições expressas na Lei n. 8.666, de 21 de junho de 1993, pelos preceitos do direito público e pelas disposições de direito privado correlatas. Parágrafo único. Os casos omissos serão resolvidos à luz das referidas leis, recorrendo-se à analogia, aos costumes e aos princípios do direito.

Cláusula sétima – DA VIGÊNCIA O prazo de vigência do presente acordo será de 24 (vinte e quatro) meses a contar da data de sua assinatura, podendo ser prorrogado por meio de termo aditivo, de acordo com os interesses dos partícipes, nos termos da legislação vigente.

Cláusula oitava – DOS RECURSOS FINANCEIROS Este acordo não gera compromisso financeiro ou transferência de recursos entre a SENACON e o TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA, de modo que eventuais despesas decorrentes serão suportadas por dotação orçamentária própria de cada partícipe ou por recursos obtidos em outras fontes, para o cumprimento das ações previstas neste instrumento. Parágrafo único. Quando as ações referidas no caput desta cláusula envolverem recursos financeiros entre os partícipes e outros parceiros, elas serão oficializadas por meio de instrumentos específicos.

Cláusula nona – DA RESCISÃO E DA DENÚNCIA DO ACORDO O TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA e/ou a SENACON poderão, a qualquer tempo e sem prejuízo dos compromissos já assumidos, rescindir o presente acordo mediante denúncia, com antecedência mínima de 60 (sessenta) dias, nos seguintes casos: I – pelo não cumprimento de qualquer de suas cláusulas; II – pela falta de interesse de qualquer das partes em sua manutenção; III – por mútuo acordo; ou IV – por força de lei que o torne material ou formalmente impraticável.

Cláusula décima – DAS ALTERAÇÕES A alteração de qualquer das disposições estabelecidas neste convênio somente se reputará válida se tomada nos termos da lei e, expressamente, em termo aditivo, que ao presente aderir-se-á, passando a dele fazer parte.

Cláusula décima primeira – DA PUBLICAÇÃO A publicação deste acordo será efetuada em extrato no Diário Oficial da União e no Diário da Justiça Eletrônico no prazo de 20 (vinte) dias a contar da data de sua assinatura, correndo à conta da SENACON e do TRIBUNAL DE JUSTIÇA as despesas de suas respectivas publicações.

Cláusula décima segunda – DO FORO Fica eleito o foro da Seção Judiciária do Distrito Federal da Justiça Federal para dirimir quaisquer controvérsias decorrentes deste instrumento que porventura não tenham sido resolvidas administrativamente.

E assim, por estarem de pleno acordo e ajustados, assinam o presente instrumento em 2 (duas) vias de igual teor, forma e validade, para publicação e execução.

Florianópolis-SC, 29 de maio de 2015.

JULIANA PEREIRA DA SILVA NELSON SCHAEFER MARTINS Secretária Nacional do Consumidor Presidente do Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Santa Catarina

Testemunha: _________________________________________ JAIME RAMOS Coordenador do Conselho Gestor do Sistema de Juizados Especiais e Programas Alternativos de Solução de Conflitos

Testemunha: _________________________________________ JANICE GOULART GARCIA UBIALLI Sub-Coordenadora do Conselho Gestor do Sistema de Juizados Especiais e Programas Alternativos de Solução de Conflitos

ANEXO 4 CARTA DE FLORIANÓPOLIS – XXXVII FONAJE

Os magistrados dos Juizados Especiais do Brasil, reunidos no XXXVII Encontro do Fórum Nacional de Juizados Especiais – FONAJE, nos dias 27, 28 e 29 de maio de 2015, em Florianópolis, capital do Estado de Santa Catarina, respaldados pela função que lhes foi outorgada pela Constituição Federal de 1988, e conscientes da relevância de sua atuação como agentes de pacificação social, vêm a público para:

1. Ratificar o compromisso com a celeridade da prestação jurisdicional por intermédio da conciliação, meio autocompositivo consagrado como o ato mais importante e efetivo do procedimento do Juizado Especial;

2. Reiterar que os elevados propósitos da Resolução 125 do Conselho Nacional de Justiça devem respeitar as especificidades e a autonomia do Sistema dos Juizados Especiais, cujo comando constitucional prevê a atuação judicial conciliatória como um verdadeiro poder-dever;

3. Registrar que a Justiça Penal Consensual, por intermédio dos Juizados Especiais Criminais, propicia a efetiva restauração das relações interpessoais, garante a preservação dos interesses da vítima e contribui para a reeducação e para a reinserção social dos envolvidos;

4. Manifestar-se contrariamente à adoção de medidas administrativas que, sem a adequada estruturação, atribuam competência própria dos Juizados da Fazenda Pública a unidades judiciárias cíveis;

5. Conclamar Estados e Municípios a editarem leis que, visando à solução rápida e econômica dos litígios, autorizem a realização de conciliações nos Juizados Especiais da Fazenda Pública;

6. Reafirmar que o Novo Código de Processo Civil, tendo em conta sua eventual aplicação subsidiária ao Sistema, não deve comprometer os avanços conquistados pelos Juizados Especiais.

Florianópolis, 29 de maio de 2015.