The risk (or not) of procedural nullity due to the notification of the defendant together with the notification of the judgment issued outside of the hearing in the procedure of law 9.099/1995

Abstract

The controversy surrounding the possibility of serving the defendant with the judgment, especially when the judgment is delivered outside of a hearing, highlights the relevance and complexity of the topic, justifying its in-depth approach in this research. This discussion gains special importance given the possible procedural repercussions arising from this practice, particularly with regard to the defendant's claim of procedural nullity, which may compromise the effectiveness and security of the enforcement procedure. The debate falls within the field of legal hermeneutics, requiring the application of methods of interpreting legal norms, such as the grammatical method, which seeks the literal meaning of the legal text, and the finalistic or teleological method, which seeks to identify the purpose of the norm and the objectives intended by the legislator. In this context, it becomes essential to analyze the scope of the rule provided for in Article 52 of Law No. 9,099/1995, especially with regard to the form and timing of the defendant's notification within the scope of the Special Civil Courts. Furthermore, the need for, or not of, the subsidiary application of the provisions of article 523, caput, of the Code of Civil Procedure is discussed, considering the peculiarities of the microsystem of the Special Courts, guided by the principles of simplicity, speed, and informality. Regardless of the position adopted, it is undeniable that the absence of a clear and uniform definition by the Judiciary contributes to legal uncertainty, opening space for divergent interpretations and allegations of procedural nullities, which reinforces the need for a more consistent position on the matter.