CONSENSUALISM IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AS A TOOL FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of consensualism in Public Administration as an instrument for broadening access to justice in its effective dimension. It starts from the premise that access to justice is not limited to formal access to courts, but encompasses the achievement of adequate, timely, proportional and materially fair solutions to conflicts. To this end, it examines the relativization of the principles of supremacy and unavailability of the public interest, distinguishing the unavailability of public interest from its alleged non-transactionability. The research adopts a deductive method, based on bibliographical review, normative analysis and recent institutional data from the National Council of Justice and the Federal Court of Accounts. The analysis covers four axes: the relativization of classical dogmas of administrative law; the normative and institutional consolidation of consensual Public Administration; the relationship between consensuality and effective access to justice; and the limits, risks and controls applicable to administrative agreements. The paper concludes that consensualism, when subject to legality, reasoning, transparency, control and protection of the primary public interest, constitutes a relevant instrument for litigation prevention, rationalization of state action and realization of a fair legal order.