The term "Notify Them" (Avisa-lá), although colloquial in origin, technically refers to the Duty of Communication of Procedural Acts and the materialization of the Principle of Non-Surprise in Civil and Digital Procedural Law. It concerns the regulatory framework that governs official notification to the parties regarding the progress of litigation, which is fundamental for guaranteeing substantial adversarial proceedings and the right to a full defense, as advocated by the Federal Constitution and the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure.
1. Definition, Concept, and Legal Nature
In the rigor of legal science, the expression in question refers to the institute of summons and service of process by electronic means, embodied in the state's duty and the parties' duty-power to ensure unequivocal knowledge of decisions, orders, and procedural acts. Its legal nature is that of a procedural act of communication, possessing a mandatory and binding character for the validity of the procedural legal relationship.
The concept transcends mere data transmission; it is based on the Right to Adequate Information, ensuring that no judicial ruling is issued without the party having the technical and temporal opportunity to exercise their resistance or adherence. From the perspective of modern procedural law, it is the instrument that operationalizes Substantial Adversarial Proceedings (Art. 7 and 10, CPC/2015), prohibiting decisions based on grounds upon which the parties have not had the opportunity to manifest.
2. Historical Origin and Evolution in Brazilian Law
The evolution of the procedural communication system in Brazil migrated from a strictly physical and formalistic model to a digital and swift one. Historically, communication depended exclusively on the printed Official Gazette and the figure of the court bailiff. With the advent of Law No. 11.419/2006, the computerization of the judicial process was established, allowing for summons and notifications to occur via electronic means.
The transition culminated in the reform brought by Law No. 14.195/2021, which amended the Code of Civil Procedure to prioritize electronic service of process (Art. 246, CPC). In comparative law, this trend aligns with European Union guidelines on the Digital Single Market and the dematerialization of procedural acts, aiming for the efficiency provided for in the Principle of Reasonable Duration of the Process (Art. 5, LXXVIII, CF/88).
3. Legal Provision and Regulatory Framework
The validity foundation of the system of procedural notices and communications rests on a hierarchical regulatory complex:
- Federal Constitution: Art. 5, clauses LIV (Due Process of Law) and LV (Adversarial Proceedings and Full Defense).
- Code of Civil Procedure (Law 13.105/2015):
- Art. 193: Regulates procedural acts by electronic means.
- Art. 246: Establishes the primacy of electronic service of process, preferably via the Judiciary's registration system.
- Art. 270: Determines that notifications be made, whenever possible, by electronic means.
- Law No. 11.419/2006: Specifically provides for the computerization of the judicial process.
- CNJ Resolution No. 455/2022: Regulates the Judiciary Services Portal and the Electronic Judicial Domicile, centralizing the procedural communication system for legal and natural persons.
4. Practical Application and Consolidated Jurisprudence
The practical application of the institutionalized "Notify Them" occurs through the Electronic Judicial Domicile, a tool that centralizes communications from all Brazilian courts. The jurisprudence of the Superior Courts has been rigorous regarding the observance of these mechanisms:
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in the judgment of REsp 2.026.794/SP, reinforced the validity of electronic service of process, provided that the requirements for confirmation of receipt are observed. The Court understands that the duty to keep registration updated in court systems (such as PJe) is the party's burden, and negligence in checking the system implies a presumption of knowledge (Tacit Notification).
Within the scope of the Superior Labor Court (TST), Precedent (Súmula) 428 and analogous interpretations regarding the use of communication technologies highlight that standby regimes or knowledge of acts via messaging applications (such as WhatsApp) have legal validity provided there is proof of the recipient's identity and the integrity of the message, in accordance with CNJ Resolution No. 354/2020.
5. Related Principles and Doctrinal Divergences
Contemporary doctrine is divided into two main currents regarding the automation of communications:
- Guaranteeist Current: Maintains that technology cannot supplant legal certainty. It argues that electronic notification is only valid if there is irrefutable technical proof of reading (access log), under penalty of absolute nullity due to restriction of defense.
- Procedural Efficiency Current: Defended by proceduralists such as Fredie Didier Jr., it argues that the process is a burden. Once registered in the system, the party has a duty of cooperation (Art. 6, CPC), and "automatic notification" after the 10-day period (provided for in Law 11.419/06) is perfectly constitutional.
Related principles include Procedural Good Faith and the Principle of Cooperation, which impose on lawyers and public entities the maintenance of active and monitored communication channels.
6. Contemporary Relevance and Impacts on the Legal System
The definitive implementation of the Electronic Judicial Domicile in 2024 represents the pinnacle of this institute. The practical impact is a drastic reduction in procedural processing time, eliminating "dead time" between the issuance of a decision and the parties' awareness of it. However, it imposes new risks, such as the need for uninterrupted monitoring of digital platforms, transforming deadline management into an activity of high technological dependency.
Failure to comply with the duty to confirm receipt of electronic service of process is now classified as an act detrimental to the dignity of justice, subject to a fine of up to 5% of the value of the case (Art. 246, §1º-C, CPC), which demonstrates the coercive force of the institute today.
Legal and Jurisprudential References
- BRAZIL. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988. Brasília, 1988.
- BRAZIL. Law No. 13.105, of March 16, 2015. Code of Civil Procedure.
- BRAZIL. Law No. 14.195, of August 26, 2021. Amends the CPC to regulate electronic service of process.
- NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUSTICE (CNJ). Resolution No. 455 of 02/25/2022. Establishes the Electronic Judicial Domicile.
- SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE. Special Appeal No. 2.026.794/SP. Rapporteur: Min. Nancy Andrighi. Judged in 2023.
