The slowness of the Brazilian justice and the causes related to delayed jurisdictional provision
have become one of the major challenges of the Judiciary which, for a long time has been
considered inefficient by its way of acting in the resolution of the conflicts. Mechanisms
aimed at improvement the quality of the rendered services to the besides reorganizing the
internal structure of the Judiciary are seen by the National Council of Justice, as the
management and planning body of the national judiciary, as the main instruments to alleviate
this problem. In this sense, the Courts of Justice of the whole country were called to align
themselves up to the macro-challenges of the National Judicial Power. With this objective, the
judiciary the state of Tocantins, through its Strategic Planning, defined its mission which is to
be among the best Courts of Justice and be recognized as more modern, swift and effective
until 2020. And formulated objectives and challenges to be followed by all who integrate it.
In this sense, to know how the members of the judiciary of Tocantins are working and the
way that the procedures are done it becomes fundamental for a concrete analysis about its
contributions to the achievement of the institutional objectives and mission of the Judiciary
Power of the State of Tocantins which is to be among the best Courts of Justice and
recognized as being more modern, faster and 2020. From this perspective and considering that
the first instance directly exercises the final activity of the Judiciary this study delimited to
analyze some of the management procedures and management routines adopted by the
Judicial Courts of input of 3rd input of Justice of the State of Tocantins identifying the main
obstacles considered responsible for the morosity of justice. In addition to verifying how the
clerk practices at first instance may interfere with the final results provided in the Justice
Report in Numbers prepared by the National Council of Justice. For this purpose,
bibliographic research was done on the subject as well as an analysis of the regulations in
TJTO to the first degree of jurisdiction. In addition, a chapter was designed for a comparative
study between two Civil Judicial Offices of third-order input of the TJTO, where their profiles
were described, as well as the results found. As a final product, some actions considered
fundamental for the improvement of services rendered and effectiveness of justice were
proposed.
|
