Does the judge's failure to specify the points of contention give rise to procedural nullity?

Abstract

The controversy surrounding the judge's failure to specify the points of contention during the case management phase reveals the relevance and complexity of the issue, justifying its in-depth examination, especially given the direct impacts this omission can have on evidentiary activity and on the guarantees of due process and the right to a full defense. The discussion is particularly important because the delimitation of the points of contention guides the procedural conduct of the parties, defines the object of proof, and contributes to the rationality and efficiency of the procedure, avoiding the production of useless or dilatory evidence. The debate falls within the field of systematic and teleological interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring an analysis of Article 357 in light of the principles of cooperation, procedural economy, and the effectiveness of judicial protection. In this context, the question arises whether the absence of this delimitation is, in itself, sufficient to give rise to procedural nullity or whether such a consequence depends on the demonstration of concrete prejudice. The research shows that the majority of case law adopts the criterion of prejudice, rejecting merely formal nullities and preserving the balance between procedural guarantees and procedural economy. Even so, there remains a need for greater rigor in conducting the procedural review process in order to reduce legal uncertainty.