Impactos dos Incidentes de Fixação de Teses Jurídicas na Duração Razoável do Processo: IRDR, IAC e Recursos de Revista Repetitivos

Executive summary

Problem and purpose

The book examines how incidents for the resolution of repetitive claims (IRDR), assumption of jurisdiction incidents (IAC) and repetitive labor appeals affect reasonable case duration at Brazil's 1st Regional Labor Court (TRT1). Beyond processing time, it considers how these mechanisms are used, their implications for legal certainty and access to justice, and the institutional arrangements responsible for managing incidents and stayed cases.

Approach

The study combines three dimensions of analysis: institutional, procedural and subjective. It brings together rules and internal documents, incident records, PJe case data covering 2014 through July 2022, information from Nugepnac on stayed cases, interviews with judges and court staff, and a survey of the TRT1 judiciary. This design connects formal rules, procedural trajectories and the perceptions of the actors involved.

Main findings

During the period studied, precedent-setting mechanisms were used unevenly and remained limited. Stays were associated with longer case duration, particularly when cases awaited repetitive appeals before the Superior Labor Court. The study also found non-uniform routines for staying and resuming cases, incomplete or inconsistent records and difficulties in tracking the application of settled legal theses. Judges' views were mixed: they valued the potential gains in consistency and legal certainty, but also expressed concern about delay, concentrated decision-making and reduced attention to the particulars of individual cases.

Recommendations

The book recommends standardized and supervised workflows for stays and resumptions, safeguards against premature stays, automated links between cases and repetitive issues, and better data quality. It also proposes periodic institutional communication, discussion forums for judges and court staff, broader social participation in incident proceedings, and instrument-specific evaluations of both case management and the later application of settled theses.

Contribution

The book provides an empirical diagnosis of a procedural policy whose success depends on more than the production of binding precedents. It shows that stayed-case management, information quality, interdepartmental coordination and institutional trust are central to reducing uncertainty without undermining reasonable case duration.