The (National Council of Justice), chaired by the minister of the (Supreme Federal Court), carries out a survey to filter which are the legitimate compensation amounts paid to the judiciary across the country and which may be classified as abusive payments.
The study will be presented next year and should help the council across the country. Ideally, there should also be a salary cap for these benefits, which, as they are compensatory in nature, are not subject to discounts.
Among the examples mentioned of legitimate payments are bonuses for the accumulation of functions — if a civil court judge also assumes an electoral court, for example — or daily allowances paid for travel.
In his , this Friday (19), Fachin, who also presides over the STF, listed discussions on remuneration for the judiciary as one of the priorities for next year.
“Let us reiterate: transparency is key regarding remuneration modalities. Our uncompromising respect for dignity and career enhancement will, to the same extent, contain abuses”, said the minister.
Despite being one of the most important issues in the Fachin administration, the topic can also generate controversy within the CNJ and come under pressure from associations that represent the judiciary.
The fees paid by the Judiciary and the Public Ministry have been the subject of debate in recent years, both in the Judiciary and in the National Congress.
Fachin’s predecessor as president of the STF, Luís Roberto Barroso, said in an Sheet that it was in favor of the Legislature limiting compensation, but with reservations.
“I’m in favor of Congress saying which funds can legitimately exceed the ceiling and putting an end to the frills that are given improperly,” he said.
In May, the CNJ approved, like courts of Justice, recognizing and paying new benefits or advantages by administrative decision.
From then on, this type of recognition can only be carried out following the final and unappealable decision of a court in a collective action, or a qualified precedent from higher courts.
The norm, however, for magistrates, according to entities specialized in transparency and public spending. For entities, the council put a brake on expenses, but the initiative has little effectiveness.
