05/6/2024
On May 30, the deadline for companies to register with the Electronic Judicial Domicile (DJE) ended. Those that did not voluntarily register were enrolled using data obtained from the Federal Revenue Service. According to CNJ (National Council of Justice) data[1], as of May 27, only 62% of companies had registered.
Created by CNJ Resolution No. 234/2016 and regulated by CNJ Resolution No. 455/2022, the Electronic Judicial Domicile is a digital tool established by the CNJ that aims to centralize procedural communications from Brazilian courts.
The DJE aims to comply with Article 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that summons should preferably occur electronically. With the implementation of the platform, it is expected that notifications and summons will be faster, in addition to making the control of companies’ judicial obligations more efficient.
However, the DJE has become a topic of heated debate, especially regarding notifications.
The core of the debate lies in the possibility of companies acknowledging notifications; that is, once a notification is opened, the compliance period begins to run without necessarily notifying the lawyer.
This is because, under current regulations, as determined by Article 272 of the notifications, including under penalty of nullity. In other words, if the constituted lawyer does not receive the notification, it will have no effect.
However, with the new platform, the company, through an authorized employee, can also be notified, which can harm its role in the process.
Due to this possibility and the resulting harms, the Federal Council of the OAB ( Brazilian Bar Association), as well as the State Sections, have been petitioning before the CNJ to suppress the possibility of companies initiating the deadline count, emphasizing that, under the DJE’s instituted model, the system violates the prerogative of Article 272 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, in addition to allowing someone without the proper legal knowledge to start the procedural deadlines.
Another point of criticism is the lack of standardization among the courts. Some courts still send personal communications by letter or through publications in official gazettes, while others use the tool for all procedural communications, even when there is a constituted lawyer.
In addition to the lack of standardization, currently, of the 26 states in Brazil, only 15 have completed integration with the system[2]. However, States like São Paulo and Minas Gerais are still in the implementation phase. Thus, there is still considerable uncertainty regarding the procedures adopted for notification and which states have already adopted them.
It is undeniable that the Electronic Judicial Domicile brings several advantages by concentrating procedural acts in one place, especially regarding summons, which are not always sent correctly or promptly, causing harm.
On the other hand, being a new platform, several points are still in the implementation and discussion phase, especially regarding notifications and integration with the courts.
As with any novelty, some adaptation is necessary, both by those who implement it and by those who adopt it. The possibility of constructive debate between the CNJ, companies, and lawyers is what will allow the platform to be well implemented and used efficiently, making justice faster and, in the long run, less costly and more efficient for all.
[1] https://www.cnj.jus.br/mais-de-130-mil-empresas-ainda-nao-se-cadastraram-no-domicilio-judicial-eletronico/
[2] Dados da Integração do Domicílio Judicial Eletrônico (cnj.jus.br)
Co-Authored by: Marco Lorencini
