The Cooperative Model and the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure: Notes on the Jurisdictional Function Through the Lens of Procedural Cooperation, Ten Years After Its Enactment: notas sobre o exercício da função jurisdicional sob a tônica da colaboração processual após dez anos de CPC

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to analyze the conduct of judges within the cooperative model of civil procedure in Brazil, particularly after the enactment of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). It focuses on the structural changes brought by the CCP concerning the allocation of procedural duties and examines how the jurisdictional function operates within this framework. Special attention is given to the cooperative duties assigned to judges and their interpretation by higher courts after a decade of the CCP’s implementation.

Methodology: The research employed a qualitative approach, using the inductive method during the exploratory phase to identify theoretical foundations and the Cartesian method during the analytical phase to process and interpret the data. The logical structure of the text was guided by inductive reasoning, aiming for coherence between theoretical insights and jurisprudential developments.

Results: The study finds that the 2015 CCP significantly reshaped the distribution of roles in civil procedure. While judicial protagonism in dispute resolution remains inadmissible, judicial passivity is likewise impermissible. Case law from higher courts reinforces the expectation that all procedural actors, including judges, must adopt a cooperative posture to ensure procedural fairness, efficiency, and timely decision-making. The cooperative model thus redefines the judge’s role, balancing initiative with restraint.

Conclusion: The cooperative model instituted by the 2015 CCP represents a paradigm shift in Brazilian civil procedure. However, its effective implementation depends on the internalization of cooperative duties by all judicial actors. The analysis concludes that despite advancements in jurisprudence, challenges remain in harmonizing theoretical ideals with procedural practice, particularly regarding the judge’s active-yet-impartial role.