Regulation of artificial intelligence in the brazilian Judiciary
analysis of the object and definitions of CNJ Resolution no. 615/2025
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65674/rev-trf3.v36i162.742Keywords:
Resolution No. 615/2025, artificial intelligence, judiciary, AI Act, governance, risk categorization, privacy by designAbstract
This article examines Resolution No. 615/2025 of the Brazilian National Council of Justice (CNJ), which repeals Resolution No. 332/2020 and establishes rules for the development, governance, auditing, monitoring, and responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions within the Brazilian Judiciary, excluding the Supreme Federal Court. The primary objective is to explore and provide a non-exhaustive commentary on the provisions of the Resolution that specifically address its scope, foundations, principles, and definitions, assessing their reach and relevance. The analysis finds that Resolution 615 incorporates internationally recognized principles and standards, such as transparency, human oversight, proportionality, risk mitigation, and the protection of fundamental rights, while also introducing regulatory innovations, including a structured risk categorization framework, specific provisions for generative AI, the mandatory conduct of impact assessments, and the express incorporation of Privacy by Design and Privacy by Default. It is concluded that the Brazilian regulation, in addition to aligning with international best practices, presents novel regulatory elements that reinforce the benefit to court users as the central guiding criterion for the adoption of technology in the Judiciary.
References
ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 27701:2019. Técnicas de segurança — Extensão da ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 27001 e ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 27002 para gestão da privacidade da informação — Requisitos e diretrizes. Versão corrigida 2020. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2019.
ÁVILA, Humberto. Teoria dos princípios: da definição à aplicação dos princípios jurídicos. 15. ed. rev., atual. e ampl. São Paulo: Malheiros, 2014.
BOOTH, Harold et al. Secure software development practices for generative ai and dual use foundation models: an SSDF community profile. Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, july 2024. (NIST Special Publication (SP) 800 218A). Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-218A. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.
CAVOUKIAN, Ann. Privacy by design: the 7 foundational principles – implementation and mapping of fair information practices. [S.l.]: Information & Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada, 2011. Disponível em: https://gpsbydesigncentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/301946.pdf. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.
COLLINGRIDGE, David. The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1980.
CONSELHO DA EUROPA. European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). European ethical charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment. Estrasburgo: CEPEJ, 3–4 dez. 2018. Disponível em: https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.
CONSELHO NACIONAL DE JUSTIÇA (CNJ). Resolução nº 615, de 11 de março de 2025. Estabelece diretrizes para o desenvolvimento, utilização e governança de soluções desenvolvidas com recursos de inteligência artificial no Poder Judiciário. Disponível em: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/6001. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.
ISO 31700 1:2023. Consumer protection — privacy by design for consumer goods and services — part 1: high level requirements. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization, 2023.
KATSH, Ethan; RABINOVICH-EINY, Orna. Digital justice: technology and the internet of disputes. Oxford : University Express, 2017.
ORGANIZAÇÃO PARA A COOPERAÇÃO E DESENVOLVIMENTO ECONÔMICO (OECD). Principles on artificial intelligence. Paris: OECD, 2019. Disponível em: https://oecd.ai/en/ai-principles. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.
SOLOVE, Daniel J. Data is what data does: regulating based on harm and risk instead of sensitive data. 118 Northwestern University Law Review (Forthcoming), GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2023-22, GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2023-22. Disponível em: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4322198. Acesso em: 31 mar. 2024.
SUSSKIND, Richard. Online courts and the future of justice, Oxford : University Express, 2019, Edição Kindle.
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. AI Act. Regulamento 2024/1689 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 13 de junho de 2024. Disponível em: https://bo.digital.gov.pt/api/assets/etic/0e56a7ce-59df-4bf2-8142-205d83d9cafc/. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. European Commission. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Bruxelas: High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence, 2019. Disponível em: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai. Acesso em: 26 set. 2025.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Maurício Antonio Tamer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By submitting the academic text to the Journal of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region (Revista do Tribunal Regional Federal da 3ª Região), the authors declare to be the holders of the copyright, responding exclusively for any claims related to such rights; as well as guaranteeing the non-existence of any breach of academic ethics.
The authors retain the copyright and grant the Journal of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region the right of publication, without encumbrance and without limitations as to term, territory, or any other.
The concepts and opinions expressed in the signed works are the sole responsibility of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this Journal, nor of the Federal Regional Court of the 3rd Region.
