Time, topic, and territory: A jurimetric mapping of the TNU's social security jurisprudence
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21527/2176-6622.2026.65.17831Keywords:
Social Security Law, Jurimetrics, PrecedentsAbstract
The National Panel for the Uniformization of Case Law of the Federal Special Courts (TNU) plays a fundamental role in consolidating jurisprudence in social security matters, promoting legal certainty and equal treatment within the Federal Judiciary. In light of the high volume of litigation and the complexity of social rights, this article aims to analyze the representative issues addressed by the TNU in the field of social security law, examining their structure, frequency, processing time, and institutional impact. The research question guiding the study is: how are the TNU’s representative issues in social security matters structured? To answer this question, an exploratory and descriptive methodology is adopted, based exclusively on quantitative analysis with a jurimetric approach. The empirical dataset was built from the 168 social security issues available on the TNU’s website up to June 2025. The results indicate a strong thematic concentration around special retirement, disability benefits, and insured status, which together account for more than 70% of the total issues. A high degree of variation in processing time was also observed, with an overall average of 426 days, as well as regional asymmetries in the origin of the issues. It is concluded that the TNU’s activity contributes to the uniformization of social security jurisprudence but faces challenges regarding timeliness. The study highlights the importance of jurimetrics as a tool for institutional diagnosis and underscores the need for strategies that reconcile decision-making efficiency with adjudicative quality.
References
BARROSO, L. R.. Contramajoritário, Representativo e Iluminista: Os papeis dos tribunais constitucionais nas democracias contemporâneas. Revista Direito e Práxis, v. 9, n. 4, p. 2171-2228, 2018. Disponível em: https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/index.php/revistaceaju/article/view/30806/21752. Acesso em: 15jun. 2026.
BRASIL. Lei nº 10.259, de 12 de julho de 2001. Dispõe sobre a instituição dos Juizados Especiais Cíveis e Criminais no âmbito da Justiça Federal. Diário Oficial da União: seção 1, Brasília, DF, ano 139, n. 134, p. 1, 13 jul. 2001. Disponível em: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/LEIS_2001/L10259.htm. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026.
CAPPELLETTI, M.. Juízes legisladores? Trad. Carlos Alberto Alvaro de Oliveira. Porto Alegre: Sergio Antonio Fabris, 1999.
LEITÃO, A. S.; PIERDONÁ, Z. L.; VERAS, A. R.. Desafios à Judicialização da Previdência Social: legalidade, microspismo e pré-julgamento. Nomos: Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Direito da UFC, n. 43, v. 1, p. 131-152, 2023. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufc.br/nomos/article/view/83350. Acesso em 12 fev. 2026.
LEITÃO, A. S.; MACÊDO, J. L. M.; MOREIRA, R. P.. A Globalização Econômica e a Reforma da Previdência: impactos para o futuro da seguridade social no Brasil. Revista dos Tribunais, v. 108, n. 1010, p. 23-45, dez. 2019. Disponível em: https://www.lexml.gov.br/urn/urn:lex:br:rede.virtual.bibliotecas:artigo.revista: 2019; 1001173776. Acesso em 12 fev. 2026.
OMATTI, J. E. M.; PEDRON, F. Q.. A função contramajoritária do Judiciário nos 30 anos da Constituição de 1988. Revista do Instituto de Hermenêutica Jurídica, 2021.
QUEIROZ, D. Z. P. DE M.; ALMEIDA, A. C. DE.; PORTO, G. G.. Judicialização da previdência: o perfil dos segurados e das demandas por incapacidade. Revista Direito GV, v. 20, p. e2404, 2024. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/rdgv/a/cqMQyzQRVbGqQCtCTmXNdDK/. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026.
SÁ, A. S. B.; FEITOSA, G. R. P.; CAMINHA, U.. Precedentes judiciais: uma análise jurimétrica no Tribunal de Justiça do Ceará. Revista Direito GV, v. 18, n. 3, p. e2233, 2022. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/rdgv/a/R7w8SQdT3NZQBZmWm3z5cmQ/. Acesso em 12 fev. 2026.
SOUZA, P. H. G. F. DE.; VAZ, F. M.; PAIVA, L. H.. Efeitos redistributivos da Reforma da Previdência. Estudos Econômicos (São Paulo), v. 51, n. 3, p. 565–600, jul. 2021. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/ee/a/mVH8q6Mgkm4brjnZQG6HtVR/. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Carlos Eduardo Ferreira Aguiar, José Eduardo de Melo Vilar Filho, André Studart Leitão
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
By publishing in the Revista Direito em Debate, authors agree to the following terms:
Articles are licensed under the Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0), which allows:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format;
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use.
These permissions are irrevocable, provided the following terms are respected:
Attribution — authors must be properly credited, with a link to the license and indication of any modifications made;
No additional restrictions — no legal or technological measures may be applied that restrict the use permitted by the license.
Notices:
The license does not apply to elements in the public domain or covered by legal exceptions.
The license does not grant all rights required for specific uses (e.g., image rights, privacy, or moral rights).
The journal is not responsible for opinions expressed in the articles, which remain the sole responsibility of the authors. The Editor, with the support of the Editorial Committee, reserves the right to suggest or request modifications when necessary.
Only original scientific articles presenting research results of interest, not previously published or simultaneously submitted to another journal with the same purpose, will be accepted.
References to trademarks or specific products are intended solely for identification purposes and do not imply any promotional endorsement by the authors or the journal.
License Agreement (for articles published as of 2026): Authors retain copyright over their articles and grant the Revista Direito em Debate the right of first publication.
