Banca de DEFESA: CAMILA MONFERRARI OLIVEIRA
Uma banca de DEFESA de MESTRADO foi cadastrada pelo programa.STUDENT : CAMILA MONFERRARI OLIVEIRA
DATE: 24/02/2025
TIME: 10:30
LOCAL: teams
TITLE:
The term "LENIENCY AGREEMENT" in the jurisprudence of the Brazilian Superior Courts: what is being questioned and how do the Supreme Federal Court and the Superior Court of Justice decide?
KEY WORDS:
leniency agreement; judicialization; Superior Court of Justice; Supreme Federal Court; quantitative analysis; qualitative analysis
PAGES: 190
BIG AREA: Ciências Sociais Aplicadas
AREA: Direito
SUMMARY:
In the context of a remarkable increase in the judicialization of leniency agreements, this study aimed to conduct an empirical investigation employing both quantitative and qualitative analyses. It sought to compile all decisions referencing the term “leniency agreement” in the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court up to November 2024. The focus on these Higher Courts is justified by the significance of their rulings and their pivotal role in addressing issues related to leniency agreements. Despite being an essential theme for understanding the recent phenomenon of judicialization surrounding this consensual instrument of Public Administration, a gap was identified in mapping the current landscape of judicial oversight exercised by the Superior Court of Justice and Supreme Federal Court over leniency agreements. Consequently, this research aimed to address the following question: What is the landscape of the judicialization of leniency agreements in the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court, considering the themes raised and the corresponding judicial pronouncements? To address this question, the study proposed a quantitative analysis of all decisions containing the term “leniency agreement” within the body of the rulings and a qualitative analysis, utilizing filters to identify those decisions in which the leniency agreement was indeed a significant theme addressed in the judgment, for which a judicial pronouncement was made. In the quantitative analysis, a total of 705 decisions were identified, comprising 340 from the Superior Court of Justice and 365 from the Supreme Federal Court, including both individual and collegiate rulings containing the term “leniency agreement.” From this initial dataset, filters were applied to isolate the decisions that would be subjected to qualitative analysis, resulting in 290 decisions in which the theme under discussion, and for which a judicial pronouncement was sought, specifically pertained to a leniency agreement. It was further observed that, among these decisions, both in the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court, over 90% related to discussions concerning anti-corruption leniency agreements. In the qualitative analysis, the objective was to elucidate the themes raised by the parties in the Higher Courts and the corresponding judicial pronouncements, indicating that: a) there exists a notable convergence between the themes raised in the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court, with the latter significantly influenced by themes associated with Operation Lava-Jato, and b) that the judicial pronouncements have predominantly consisted of formal analyses of the issues at hand, rather than substantive evaluations pertaining to leniency agreements.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Presidente - 1828282 - AMANDA ATHAYDE LINHARES MARTINS RIVERA
Interna - 1509022 - ANA DE OLIVEIRA FRAZAO VIEIRA DE MELLO
Externo à Instituição - IGOR SANTANNA TAMASAUSKAS - USP
Externa à Instituição - JULIANA BONACORSI DE PALMA - FGV