Constitution Conciliation

And when we talk about reconciliation, we refer to the process by which two people facing a conflict freely negotiated creative solutions with the assistance of a neutral third party known as a conciliator, which facilitates communication, encourages cooperative and will propose alternative solutions that the parties may or may not accept, arriving at solutions that may be different than the claims that were made initially. There are several forms of conciliation recognized in our legal system, the labor, the arbitration process, the administrative procedures and competition among them will be referred to conciliation court is arguably the most used, it should be carried out in all contentious legal proceedings, as existence and application runs in conjunction with the Civil Procedure Code in force since July 1993. The institution of conciliation, in whatever form, as a means of dispute resolution has great expectations for those who postulate, as its objective advantages are obvious, but there are several factors that have thwarted since ancient times in our legal reality . ‘>Steven P Rosenthal Northland. We should not forget about this institution with some variants were already known and had constitutional status in our reality from the Constitution of 1812 which occurred in 1828 and then fell almost forgotten, precisely because the poor results he had. In the experience of conciliation court, try to find the factors that have given the expected achievements or limitations unwanted and the prospects for its implementation after many years of experience. As currently Organs Jurisdictional shows that there is a different application in regard to intercompany reconciliation process, in the case of this test show the Act of Settlement made in a process of Nullity of fraudulent res judicata, the same as that concluded by conciliation, without the availability or recognize the existence of fraud, collusion, affecting the right to due process in this cause on the contrary more conciliatory formula was limited around the possession of a property in dispute, a claim that was not required by the applicants of the process in words.