Conflito de competência entre órgãos do judiciário e tribunal arbitral frente ao princípio da autonomia privada na arbitragem

Abstract

The present work aims to analyze conflicts of jurisdiction between the judiciary body and the arbitration court, in the court of justice of the State of Maranhão, highlighting the majority understanding and to what extent these conflicts occur. The study is justified, due to the importance of understanding arbitration, as one of the means of resolving conflicts, with a heterocomposition character, having an impartial third party who will render a ruling on regulations related only to property rights, and the principle of private autonomy and the principle of competence-competence. To this end, it addresses the contours of arbitration, as an alternative means of conflict resolution according to CPC/15, its subjective and objective requirements and discussions on the legal nature of arbitration, highlighting the jurisdictional nature as the majority. Continuing, the arbitration agreement is highlighted as a means of carrying out arbitration, having as its basic principle private autonomy, which allows the parties to submit to it, so that its creation brought greater security regarding the choice of the arbitration court, being The effects of the arbitration award designated by the arbitration court are also highlighted. The research is classified as a technical bibliographic procedure, of an exploratory nature, through the hypothetical-deductive scientific method. Finally, research was carried out on the judiciary's decisions regarding conflicts of jurisdiction in the TJMA, bringing results, which show that the State of Maranhão, among the other States in Brazil, is one of those with the lowest frequency of arbitration cases, resulting in, in fact, in the low incidence of conflicts of jurisdiction between the court of law and the arbitration court. However, although there is little quantitative frequency of cases of conflict of jurisdiction, in the results, it was possible to see that in conflicts of jurisdiction between courts of law and arbitration, the decisions are favorable to arbitration, which demonstrates the prevalence of the principle of private autonomy, as well as the prevalence of the principle of competence-competence that the arbitration judge has.