Convenção de instância única: a negociação processual atípica ante a vulnerabilidade da parte

Abstract

The present work analyzes the convention of single instance, as an atypical contract of procedure, according to the constitutional principles of the process, and the possibility of suppressing the double degree of jurisdiction and the waiver of the right to appeal in legal relations integrated by a vulnerable individual. Procedural deals are part of the paradigmatic change in the process that occurred with the advent of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, which is based on the flexibility of the judicial process. The contract of procedure provides the parties with freedom to adapt the procedure to the specifics of the case, as well as to agree on their legal-procedural situations. Searched to conceptualize first what is a resource and what is a double degree of jurisdiction within the constitutional text. In order to try to resolve the doubts brought by the opening of the process to the protagonism of the parties, an analysis of the validity of this procedural agreement was necessary. The methodological cut sought to analyze the possibility of the agent of the group of vulnerable individuals and procedural subject to agree the waiver of the right to appeal. For that brought support for the conceptualization of vulnerability in material law so that procedural vulnerability could be understood. Among the individuals who are part of the group that needs protection due to their vulnerability, the consumer, the worker and the feeding child or adolescent. The single instance convention is fully valid in consumer and labor relations since it has been concluded that the material vulnerability of the subjects does not prevent them from entering into legal transactions, nor procedural transactions. In order to deny the applicability of the single instance convention, it would be necessary to verify on a case-by-case basis that the agent, because of his condition, acted in a manner dissociated from his will. Feeders, on the other hand, cannot negotiate the waiver of the right to appeal because it ends up affecting the right to food across the board, which is unavailable.