The CNJ (National Council of Justice), chaired by the Minister of the STF (Federal Supreme Court) Edson Fachin, is carrying out an investigation to filter which are the legitimate amounts of compensation paid to justice across the country and which can be qualified as abusive payments.
The study will be presented next year and should help the council filter the payment of penduricalhos across the country. Ideally, there should also be a salary cap for these benefits which, being compensatory in nature, are not subject to reductions.
Among the examples mentioned of legitimate payments are bonuses for multiple functions – if a civil judge also assumes responsibility for an electoral tribunal, for example – or daily allowances paid for travel.
In his speech closing the judicial year, this Friday (19), Fachin, who also chairs the STF, cited discussions on the remuneration of the judiciary as one of the priorities for next year.
“Let us remember: transparency is essential with regard to remuneration arrangements. Our uncompromising respect for dignity and career development will limit, to the same extent, abuses,” declared the minister.
Although it is one of the most important subjects within the Fachin administration, the subject can also give rise to controversies within the CNJ and come under pressure from associations representing the judiciary.
The fees paid by the judiciary and the public prosecutor’s office have been the subject of debate in recent years, both within the judiciary and in the National Congress.
Fachin’s predecessor as STF president, Luís Roberto Barroso, said in an interview with Leaf that he was in favor of the legislature limiting compensation, but with reservations.
“I support Congress clarifying which funds can legitimately exceed the cap and ending inappropriately allocated excesses,” he said.
In May, the NJC approved a resolution prohibiting organs of the judiciary, such as courts, from recognizing and disbursing new benefits or advantages by administrative decision.
Now, this type of recognition can only be made following a final and non-appealable decision by a court in a class action, or a nuanced precedent from higher courts.
The rule, however, leaves gaps and does not resolve the problem of judges’ overpayments, according to entities specializing in transparency and public spending. For the entities, the council has curbed spending, but the initiative has little effectiveness.
About The Author
