The legal maxim inter partes defines the subjective efficacy of legal acts and judicial decisions, restricting their effects exclusively to the subjects who were part of the procedural or contractual relationship. Within the scope of Procedural and Civil Law, this principle embodies the guarantee of due process and the preservation of legal certainty for third parties not involved in the dispute.
Concept and Foundation
The Latin expression inter partes translates to the subjective limitation of rights and obligations. From the perspective of legal nature, it is a postulate of restrictive efficacy that prevents the content of a legal transaction or a court order from extending beyond the legal sphere of those who expressed their will or were parties to the procedural relationship. In contrast to the erga omnes effect, the inter partes effect ensures that the authority of res judicata does not bind third parties extraneous to the process, under penalty of violating due process of law.
Historical Origin and Evolution
The genesis of the institute dates back to Roman Law, consolidated in the maxim res inter alios acta aliis nec nocet nec prodest (what is done between some does not harm or benefit others). In modern Law, the evolution of the concept followed the transition from liberal individualism to constitutional proceduralism. While in Classical Law the restriction was absolute, contemporary doctrine and Brazilian procedural legislation have mitigated this rigidity, allowing for the extension of effects in specific situations, such as in procedural succession and third-party intervention.
Legal Provision and Normative Framework
The Brazilian legal system enshrines the principle fundamentally in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC/2015):
- Art. 506 of the CPC: "The judgment creates res judicata for the parties between whom it is given, not prejudicing third parties." This provision is the cornerstone of inter partes efficacy in the procedural system.
- Art. 436 of the Civil Code: Establishes that "the contract only creates law between the parties," reflecting the application of the principle in the Law of Obligations, limiting the efficacy of pacts to the contracting subjects.
- Art. 5, item LV, of the Federal Constitution: The guarantee of the adversarial system and full defense presupposes that no one shall be affected by judicial decisions without the opportunity for intervention, reinforcing the inter partes nature of jurisdiction.
Jurisprudence and Practical Application
The understanding consolidated in the Superior Courts (STF and STJ) maintains the general rule of restricted efficacy, with specific exceptions aimed at protecting collective rights or succession:
- STJ (REsp 1.834.739/SP): The Court reaffirms that res judicata cannot reach third parties who were not part of the dispute, except in cases of procedural substitution expressly provided for by law.
- STF (Theme 1076): The discussion on the applicability of attorney fees and the effects of decisions in repetitive demands demonstrates the Judiciary's effort to modulate the effects of res judicata, ensuring that the inter partes scope is respected until the precedent technique (art. 927, CPC) acts to unify the understanding.
- Crucial Distinction: It is fundamental to differentiate the inter partes efficacy of a common judgment from the erga omnes or ultra partes efficacy of collective actions (Law 7.347/1985), where social interest outweighs the rule of subjective restriction.
Related Principles and Divergences
The inter partes principle is directly correlated with the Principle of Relativity of Contract Effects and the Principle of Material Res Judicata. Doctrinal divergences arise in the analysis of the "reflex efficacy" of a judgment, where scholars such as Pontes de Miranda and, more recently, Fredie Didier Jr., debate whether third parties can suffer indirect effects of decisions without this constituting an offense to the principle, especially in cases of economic groups or business succession.
Contemporary Relevance
In the current scenario of hyperconnectivity and repetitive litigation, maintaining inter partes efficacy is the mechanism that prevents jurisdictional arbitrariness. However, the Brazilian procedural system has moved towards controlled flexibility through the Incident of Resolution of Repetitive Demands (IRDR), which, although deciding legal issues with binding effect, does not annul the need to observe the factual peculiarities of each inter partes relationship. Technical precision in the application of this term is what ensures the health of the Democratic State of Law, preventing jurisdiction from becoming an instrument of indiscriminate intervention in the sphere of others.
Legal and Jurisprudential References
- BRAZIL. Law No. 13.105, of March 16, 2015. Code of Civil Procedure.
- BRAZIL. Law No. 10.406, of January 10, 2002. Civil Code.
- BRAZIL. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988.
- STJ, REsp 1.834.739/SP, Rapporteur Min. Nancy Andrighi, Third Panel, judged in 2020.
- DIDIER JR., Fredie. Course on Civil Procedural Law. Vol. 1. Salvador: Juspodivm.
