STF receives a definition request for criteria regarding the duty of revelation of referees

STF receives a definition request for criteria regarding the duty of revelation of referees

At the end of March this year, the STF, the argument of Fundamental Precept (ADPF) 1050 was proposed, dealing with the figure of arbitrators in arbitration procedures. Argue the proponents regarding the practice of arbitrators of arbitral procedures appear in others as prosecutors, claiming that such conduct would generate legal uncertainty and requesting the revision of the precepts inherent in the duty of revelation to the arbitrators.

art. 14 of Law 9.307/1996 (Arbitration Law) provides that they will be prevented from acting as arbitrators those who have, with the parties or the dispute submitted to them, some of the relations that characterize the cases of impediment or suspicion of judges. The duty of revelation is specifically foreseen in the first paragraph of this provision, which advocates that those indicated to act as referees have a duty to reveal, before the acceptance of the appointment, any fact that denies justified doubt as to its impartiality and Independence.

In the argument, they essentially argue that the applicants: that the absence of revelation of a certain impeding fact by the arbitrator must be considered as a cause of impediment to the exercise of the function and generating cancellation of judgment eventually rendered; that the duty of revelation must be considered exclusive to the arbitrators; which must be made possible to the parties the contestation of independence and impartiality of the arbitrators at any time. It is intended, in summary, that the understanding is uniform, so that the constitutional criteria that will be based on the interpretation and application of art. 14 of the Arbitration Law.

ADPF was known by the rapporteur, Minister Alexandre de Moraes, as a direct action of unconstitutionality, given the relevance of the constitutional matter raised and its meaning to social order and legal certainty. The minister determined information was requested, to be provided by the National Congress and the President of the Republic, within 10 (ten) days; and, then, the referral of the case to the Attorney General of the Union and the Attorney General for the proper demonstration within five (5) days. The deed was received by AGU on April 25, 2023.

Since then, criticism of the proposed action has emerged. Certain market players understand the exposed argument and STF's performance in the case. At this point, it also states that the requests for challenge of referees, presented in the eight main arbitration chambers of the country, represent less than 4% (four percent) of the total cases that were processed in 2021. P>