Bruno Landini Carvalho
Lawyer and Co-coordinator of the Conflict Prevention and Resolution team at /asbz.
The return to the work routine at TJ/SP has caused something to talk about in the legal community (mainly the civil litigation group) due to the decision of the 10th Chamber of Private Law, in case nº 1004314-54.2021.8.26.0642.
On 5/1/24, the judging panel was not aware of two motions for declaration due to untimeliness, under the elementary premise that the parties were notified of the trial session in which the appeal was judged. The rationale for the decision considered the following points:
- the trial was held remotely, due to formal opposition to the virtual trial of the appeal;
- the parties were represented by their lawyers, who even held oral arguments;
- in the session, the vote was read by the rapporteur and the judgment summary was published in the digital records on the same day of the session;
- also on the same day of the session, the ruling that was embargoed was made available in the digital records;
- the art. 718, of the Judicial Standards of the General Inspectorate of Justice, of the Court of São Paulo, expressly provides that “The summons of the judgment, which will be signed only by the rapporteur, will be made through publication of the judgment summary in the Electronic Justice Gazette, or in the trial session itself, with the deadline for possible filing of an appeal.”
Check out the complete material on the official Migalhas website at the link: https://www.migalhas.com.br/depeso/400617/intimacao-das-partes-sobre-o-acordao-na-propria-sessao-de-julgamento
