Têmis Limberger[2]**
Abstract
Arbitration, in its origins, is contractual in nature, whereas in private relations, autonomy of will prevails. In public administration, the general rule is publicity, from which cybertransparency develops. Thus, the main objective of this study is to assess the incidence and limits of these rules, particularly regarding access to public information, secrecy, confidentiality, and the protection of personal data. Furthermore, it analyzes existing regulations in the states, regulatory agencies, and arbitration chambers to assess their current status and ensure compliance with legal parameters. This study is important given the growing use of arbitration in public administration. It was found that there is no uniform procedure for regulating the matter, and there have been thirty arbitrations (submitted to CAMARB) in the ten years since the law was introduced, indicating room for growth in its use.
Keywords
Cybertransparency — arbitration public administration — advertising — access to information — personal data protection
Resumo
A arbitragem, na sua origem, tem natureza contratual, sendo que nas relações privadas, prepondera a autonomia da vontade. Na administração pública, a regra geral é da publicidade, a partir do qual, desenvolve-se a cibertransparência. Assim, o objetivo principal do estudo é verificar a incidência e os limites no confronto destas normas, principalmente do acesso à informação pública, do sigilo, da confidencialidade e da proteção dos dados pessoais. E, ainda, analisar as regulamentações existentes nos Estados, nas Agências Reguladoras e Câmaras arbitrais, a fim de verificar o estado da arte e se estão em consonância com os parâmetros legais. O estudo é importante, considerando a utilização crescente da arbitragem na administração pública. Constatou-se que não existe um procedimento uniforme para regulamentação da matéria e tem-se, trinta arbitragens (submetidas à CAMARB), nestes dez anos de incidência da lei, o que indica existir espaço para crescimento de sua utilização.
Palavras-chave
Cibertransparência — arbitragem administração pública- publicidade — acesso à informação — proteção dados pessoais
The term cyber transparency[3] denotes the new cyber[4] network-based relationships merged with the idea of transparency, whereby technology is leveraged to enhance the dissemination of public information. Significantly, when the state employs new technologies to share information online, it facilitates participation in public affairs, increased social control and oversight of administrative contracts and state spending. In this context, the process of arbitration addresses extra-judicial conflict.
At its root, arbitration is contractual in nature, driven by the autonomy of the respective parties. However, when one of the parties is the administration, the principles of public law override, necessitating reflection on public disclosure and its limits. The guiding principle is article 37, caput, of the Federal Constitution (CF), which provides for the Constitutional Principle of Public Disclosure. Article 2, §3, of Law No. 13.129/2015, the Arbitration Law (LArb), establishes public disclosure as a norm. However, this legislation belongs to the Brazilian legal order and must be interpreted systematically alongside the constitutional right of access to public information (Art. 5, XXXIII, which prompted the Access to Information Act—LAI). This access is limited by statutory confidentiality under Article 5, LX. Furthermore, it must be balanced against personal data protection under Article 5, LXXIX, amended by EC No. 115/2022, which established the General Data Protection Law—LGPD.
Thus, in public administration, the general rule is that transparency may be mitigated depending on the specific case and the application of other principles and rights that, in case of conflict, may limit it. The main objective of this study, then, is to examine the applicability and limits when balancing these legal rules. To this end, existing regulations across states, regulatory agencies, and arbitral institutions are analyzed to evaluate the status quo and determine compliance with statutory parameters. This discussion is timely, given the increasing use of arbitration in public administration, due, in part, to the comparative speed of the extrajudicial procedure. It is the embodiment of the principle of efficiency,[5] considered here through the lens of the economic analysis of law.
In principle, public administration actions are governed by the constitutional requirement of publicity and transparency. However, at times, the need for privacy and data protection[6] may prevail[7]. In a networked society, public information is made available on transparency portals, as required by Law No. 12.527/2011, the Public Information Access Law (LAI). The arbitration law, which expressly allowed the resolution of disputes involving public authorities, established the requirement of publicity in article 2, § 3, of the Arbitration Law. Thus, the general rule is that disclosure may be mitigated depending on the specific case and application of other rights, which ultimately limit it.
Arbitration law employs the term confidentiality[8] and legislation normally guarantees secrecy.[9] For the purposes of this study, the terms and their effects may be equated. Confidentiality is often cited as a key driver of credibility that encourages user adoption, particularly in international and private settings. However, the general rules do not point in this direction. The parties should not assume that there is always an obligation of confidentiality in arbitration. Although the ICC is bound by it, the parties themselves may not be, as this is generally decided by applicable law. French arbitration law does not establish confidentiality as a rule, although the parties may agree otherwise. In Spain, the more generic expression public order prevails[10] as a general clause by which judges give effect to the guiding principles of the legal system, safeguarding coherence, equality, and legal certainty.
The paradigm of confidentiality is increasingly subject to question when the public administration is one of the parties involved. In international trade, when states are involved and the public interest is paramount, transparency and accountability must be guaranteed.
Confidentiality in arbitration is not provided for in Brazilian law, except in Article 22, directed at the Judiciary in the case of the enforcement of arbitral awards. Hence, the provision in Article 2, §3 of the Arbitration Law guides this matter.
Beyond confidentiality in arbitration, another issue that raises doubts due to its apparent contradiction is the connection between the right to personal data protection and the right of access to public information. This binary, familiar in foreign law, was incorporated into Brazilian law under Chapter IV of the LGPD, which specifically governs the protection of public data.[11] [12]
Fundamental rights may be subject to restrictions. The right to personal data protection does not constitute an absolute right; rather, it must be balanced against its function in society, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)[13] and as enacted in Recital 4 [14] of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
The prevailing law is determined according to the specific case. Under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 8 governs the right to personal data protection, Article 41 establishes the fundamental right to good administration, and Article 42 outlines the right of access to documents—ensuring a balance among rights that serve different protective functions. The GDPR innovates by establishing transparency in Article 5(1), placing lawfulness, fairness, and transparency at the core of the data processing relationship with the data subject.[15] Recital 39 builds upon these principles by adding equity.
The essence of the dilemma is formulated as follows: How can transparency and privacy be reconciled? Should access to documents be sacrificed on the altar of privacy? Or should we get rid of privacy completely to expose government corruption to the public?[16]
To untangle this issue, data privacy rights must be balanced against public sector transparency, observing the following criteria:[17] a) a case-by-case assessment is conducted to determine whether personal data may be published or made accessible, and, if so, under what conditions and through which medium, such as whether it is digitized or disseminated on the internet; b) the principles of purpose limitation and lawfulness are applied; c) the individual concerned is informed of the processing; d) the right of the individual to object is upheld, while new technologies contribute to the protection of the right to privacy.
For this reason, Piñar Mañas proposes a compelling synthesis: access to information and data protection are the keys to a relationship[18] that seeks to define these parameters. Thus, the public nature of personal data—resulting from a statutory provision or from the explicit consent of the subject—does not ipso facto and indefinitely deprive that individual of the protections guaranteed by law, by virtue of the fundamental principles safeguarding human identity.[19]
Our modern, interconnected world is built around digital communication networks.[20] Information is no longer disseminated from centralized sources. Instead, individuals act simultaneously as senders and receivers, breaking down the old barriers of passive consumption. This is our reality—in which the old adage “knowledge is power” resonates more powerfully.[21] The information economy is global.[22] This horizontal view of society is well-expressed in the work of Moreira Neto, who coined the phrase “from pyramid to network”. [23]
The LAI (Law on Access to Information) relates to public information online, as provided for in Article 5, XXXIII and Article 37, § 3, II of the Constitution. It establishes frameworks for user participation and grants access to government records and administrative acts[24], subject to the data privacy protections of Article 5, LXXIX, and the confidentiality exemptions of Article 5, LX.
Articles 5, XXXIII, and 37, § 3, II, of the Federal Constitution embody the principle of administrative publicity set forth in Article 37, caput, establishing transparency as the primary objective of the LAI. Thus, government actions must be broadly transparent. Public disclosure is the rule and secrecy the exception. Within this context, transparency[25]—while not explicitly stated in the Federal Constitution—arises from the combination of the principle of publicity (Article 37, caput), the democratic principle enshrined in Article 1, and the right to information (Article 5, XXXIII). In other words, publicity is the genus, rooted in the constitution, of which transparency is a species, provided for in statutory laws.
Following the enactment of LAI, Decree No. 7.724/2012 formally introduced the concepts of proactive transparency[26] (Articles 7 and 8), whereby the government automatically discloses data, and reactive transparency (Articles 9 and 10), whereby information must be explicitly requested by an interested party.
LAI establishes transparency practices for direct and indirect administration entities, without distinguishing between legal entities of public or private law. Thus, the phrasing in Article 23, caput, of the LGPD limiting its scope to public legal entities is misleading. Transparency and personal data protection must serve as guiding principles for public administration across all spheres, alongside the pursuit of the public interest—which is inherent to the statutory scope of public bodies[27]—especially given that Article 3 of the LGPD[28] explicitly notes that the law applies to both public and private legal entities.
Significantly, the federative entities provided for in Articles 1 and 18 of the Constitution (the Union, member States, the Federal District, and municipalities) are endowed with autonomy. Article 41 of the 2002 Civil Code addresses this matter, referencing domestic public legal entities, which include autonomous government agencies (autarchies) and other public entities created by law. The legal provision is not exhaustive, allowing for other types of entities with their own legal personality.
In the opening of Article 1, sole paragraph, II, the LAI references specific legal entities: autonomous agencies (autarquias), public foundations, public enterprises, and state-owned enterprises (sociedades de economia mista), which are also listed in Article 4, II, of Decree-Law (DL) 200/67.[29] Brazilian law originally established the concept of indirect administration through DL 200/67, based on the principle of decentralization (Article 4, II, DL 200/67).[30] These entities—comprising autonomous agencies, public enterprises, state-owned enterprises, and public foundations—all possess independent legal personality.
Autonomous government agencies are legal entities governed by public law, statutorily created under Article 37, XIX of the Constitution, with their own assets and revenues pursuant to Article 5, I of Decree-Law No. 200/1967. Regulatory agencies—which operate autonomously under a special legal regime[31]—are endowed with distinct prerogatives and characterized by their autonomy from the Government. This study excludes from its scope other public and private legal entities[32], as its primary focus remains the member states and regulatory agencies. Hence, the most harmonious systematic interpretation[33] requires a basic framework for personal data protection respecting legal principles set forth, regardless of whether the entity is governed by public or private law, as inferred from Article 7, III and § 3 of the LGPD. Equality in the treatment of public or private legal entity data is not absolute, but relative. Evidently, certain legal mechanisms—such as consent for data collection or requests for erasure—are mitigated when dealing with a public law entity.
The LGPD and the LAI must be interpreted systematically, respecting the unity and coherence of the legal system. In some instances, data privacy will take priority, while in others, publicity will prevail. Identifying the key interest requires a case-by-case evaluation guided by the interpretive criteria discussed. In public sector arbitration, the Arbitral Institution serves as the primary body responsible for deciding whether a requester is granted or denied access to documents.
Publicity is regulated by law. The LAI makes an exception to the rule when the issue or document involves industrial, commercial, or personal confidentiality. As Torre highlights, however, the framework fails to clarify who is actually responsible[34] for determining which records are protected by secrecy.
In the case of data access denials, Article 16 of the LAI establishes a clear appellate route. Once a superior body denies a request, the decision can be appealed to the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU), with a final recourse available before the Joint Commission for Information Reassessment (CMRI). With regard to arbitration in the public sector, the Chambers play a crucial role. Article 3, item I, establishes the rules regarding publicity in the LAI[35] and clause II makes disclosure conditional on public interest. Also, article 22 of the LAI.[36] refers to confidentiality and secrecy in legal proceedings.
Another key aspect is the procedural strategy in arbitration involving the Public Administration. Procedural strategy is understood as the intelligent development of legal theories and utilization of procedural rules within the arbitral framework. This includes identifying applicable arguments, selecting methods of proof, and managing documentary production, to establish the facts that constitute or refute particular claims. The administrative decision must take into account the procedural guarantees of the Brazilian legal system. Based on information formulated by Cardoso, the Office of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU)[37] identifies four circumstances in which confidentiality must be guaranteed: i) to safeguard competitive advantage, ii) to protect litigation strategy, iii) to preserve the inviolability of attorney-client privilege, and iv) to secure administrative proceedings regarding methods of intervention in extrajudicial disputes, including arbitration. This refers to the internal processes for defining strategies in public administration actions, among which is arbitration.
Following the Brazilian Arbitration Act (LArb), Chapter XIII of the Public Procurement and Administrative Contracts Act (Law No. 14.133/2021) formally establishes an Alternative Dispute Resolution framework. This mandate incorporates arbitration alongside conciliation, mediation, and dispute boards contractually agreed upon by the public administration and the private sector Such disputes relate to available property rights, such as issues concerning the economic and financial balance of the contract.
In Baraldi's view,[38] the arbitral system and its inherent procedural guarantees place both parties on an equal footing, even when the public administration is involved. In such cases, the burden of active transparency falls squarely on the government, which has an intrinsic duty to divulge the existence of the arbitral proceedings along with all related acts, documents, motions, and awards. To comply with publicity mandates, the Administration body typically discloses information on its official website. This ensures interested parties can readily access and review the outcomes of the arbitral procedure.
Arguably, the Principle of the Supremacy of Public Administration may be mitigated in cases of arbitration involving public administration. However, constitutional principles apply, guiding public and private relations.[39]
The Federative Republic of Brazil is almost continental in terms of its physical size. This study centers the analysis of direct administration on the member states, and of the indirect administration on regulatory agencies. These entities were prioritized as they account for the largest number of arbitrations. Yet they lack a uniform regulatory framework, even if their actual practices are occasionally similar. Municipalities are not addressed, as there are more than 5,569 in total.[40]
The states of the Brazilian federation generally share highly similar statutory language and can be consolidated into distinct groups, with a single exception. For the majority of the federative entities, no statutory provisions governing arbitration have been identified to date Hence, the following five-group classification was established based on the government approach to publicity. Certain states still currently lack regulation on arbitration within the public administration. The first group refers to public proceedings, except for those under judicial secrecy or confidentiality, already referenced to some extent in the wording of Article 22[41] of the LAI.
In São Paulo, Article 12 of State Decree No. 64.356/2019 establishes that Arbitration proceedings shall be public, with exceptions for statutory confidentiality or court secrecy. Article 16 of State Decree No. 59,963/2020, meanwhile, states: The acts of the arbitration proceedings and all information regarding the arbitration process shall be public, except for those necessary to preserve industrial or commercial secrets, and those deemed confidential under Brazilian legislation.
In Rio Grande do Sul, art. Article 14 of State Decree No. 55.996/2021 has an identical provision.[42] Article 23 of Paraná State Decree No. 10.499/2025 is similar.[43] See also: Article 12 of Goiás State Decree No. 9.929/2021[44] and article 12 of Santa Catarina State Decree No. 2.241/2022.[45]
In the second group, the legislation refers to public proceedings for arbitration, already a consequence of the LArb. Even before arbitration was legally permitted in the public sector, Selma Lemes[46] identifies it as a hybrid method of dispute resolution—contractual in origin but jurisdictional in scope. This category includes Espírito Santo, under Article 6[47] of State Law No. 10.885/2018; Minas Gerais, under Article 6[48] of State Law No. 10.885/2018; and Mato Grosso do Sol, under Article 6[49] of Law No. 610/2014; all of which state that only “arbitration at law”, through public proceedings, shall be permitted
In the third group, several other states have regulations in place but have not specifically regulated publicity and confidentiality. In Bahia, Article 30 of State Law No. 14.783/2024 mentions the use of arbitration in Public Administration, to be regulated by future Decree. In Pernambuco, State Law No. 15.627/2015 has no provision in this regard. In Pará, State Supplementary Law No. 121/2019 is silent on publicity, although Article 1, item III, sets a goal to expand the public disclosure of administrative acts
Representing the fourth group, Article 13, § 2, of Rio de Janeiro State Decree No. 46.245/2018 contains a specific regulation stipulating that the State Procurator General's Office shall provide access to the acts of the arbitration process upon the request of any interested party. This instrument ultimately ensures broad, unrestricted publicity.
The fifth group comprises the states of the federation lacking regulations in this area: Mato Grosso, Tocantins, Sergipe, Alagoas, Paraíba, Rio Grande do Norte, Ceará, Maranhão, Amapá, Roraima, Rondônia, Amazonas, Acre and Piauí[50] and DF.
Hence, this study shows that only 12 states have regulations on public sector arbitration to date. These can be classified into four groups, as some states fail to address transparency while others have handled it uniquely. The remaining 14 states and the Federal District lack regulations on this matter. Thus, despite the progress made in public sector arbitration in the last decade, of the 26 states, slightly more than half have yet to implement it.
Having examined the state level, the focus now shifts to special regime government agencies, namely the regulatory agencies
In Brazilian law, regulatory agencies are special-regime autonomous bodies linked to the Ministries within the structure of the Federal Executive Branch, as part of the indirect administration This differs from the independent administration models seen in both Europe and the United States.[51] [52]
These agencies provide for the use of arbitration in their resolutions, including provisions for public disclosure and typical limitations, as seen below
The National Land Transport Agency (ANTT) in Art. 22 of Resolution No. 5845/2019 provides that: Information in the arbitration process shall be public, except for that necessary to preserve industrial or commercial secrets and considered confidential under Brazilian law, with certain documents made available[53] on the ANTT website.
The National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL)[54] — Resolution No. 768/2024 — Annex II Clause 23.9 provides that: The arbitration procedure must observe the principle of publicity, in accordance with Brazilian law, safeguarding confidential data as stipulated in this contract. The dissemination of information shall be the responsibility of the arbitration chamber which administers the procedure, preferably electronically.
The National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL)[55] provides for arbitration under Article 3, item VI, of Ordinance No. 6.840/2023. This mechanism is defined as a method of dispute resolution involving adjudication by a mutually appointed, impartial third party. Article 2 of the Ordinance establishes the key principle of publicity.
The National Agency for Waterway Transportation (ANTAQ) provides[56] for the use of arbitration under Article 36 No. 98/2023. However, there are no provisions regarding publicity.
Other agencies are still developing their areas of expertise, particularly concerning arbitration. The National Petroleum Agency (ANP)[57] in Board Resolution No. 109/2000 regulates joint arbitration frameworks involving ANP/ANATEL/ANEEL. The National Water Agency (ANA), pursuant to Article 4-A, § 5, of Law No. 9.984/2000, facilitates mediation or arbitration proceedings, on a voluntary basis and subject to the consent of the parties, to resolve conflicts involving titleholders, regulatory agencies, or basic sanitation service providers. To date, no regulation has been published; however, ANA carried out Public Consultation No. 01/2025,[58] to gather opinions (up to April 10th) for the drafting of procedural rules for arbitration proceedings in the area of basic sanitation.
The National Film Agency (ANCINE),[59] in Article 59 of IN No. 100/2012, states that interested parties may request ANCINE arbitration to resolve doubts and settle contractual conflicts over programming, packaging, or acquiring rights for the communication of Brazilian audiovisual content or works. Paragraph 1 of the provision establishes that arbitration is subject to specific regulations, although none were found on the ANCINE website.
The National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA)[60] in ORDINANCE No. 109/ANVISA, FEBRUARY 8, 2023, does not refer to arbitration, but to the “Peaceful resolution of conflicts between users and ANVISA”, without mentioning publicity.
No provision regarding arbitration was found on the ANS website. However, the ANS mediates disputes between health insurance companies and consumers, using a handbook on the Preliminary Intermediation Notification (NIP) process[61] to connect individuals who have reported a grievance against their healthcare provider.
For the National Civil Aviation Agency (ANAC)[62] no regulations concerning arbitration were found on its website.
On the National Mining Agency (ANM) website,[63] similarly, no information was found on arbitration. However, Request for Public Comment No. 03/2021[64] is aimed at gathering stakeholder input to formulate regulations on the subject.
Thus, regulatory agencies do not present a uniform picture in terms of arbitration. ANEEL, ANATEL, and ANTT are increasingly incorporating the use of arbitration in their conflict resolution practices. The position of ANATEL is adequate and in accordance with the legislation to date.
Article 13, Paragraph 6, of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (LArb) imposes upon the arbitrator the duties of impartiality, independence, diligence, and discretion. The tribunal secretary is equated with the arbitral panel, so that duties binding the arbitrator apply equally to this role.
The principle of publicity applied to public administration arbitration requires continuous public access to the proceedings at any time, even years after the arbitration has concluded.
Operating as private sector organizations, arbitral chambers administer and organize dispute resolution proceedings from inception through to conclusion. On accepting the mandate, the arbitrator remains committed to the case through to its resolution.[65] On conclusion, documents must be retained for a period of 5 years.[66] Article 13.6 of the Business Mediation and Arbitration Chamber (CAMARB) regulations[67] establishes a five-year limitation period.
CAMARB has administered 30 (thirty) arbitration proceedings[68] involving parties subject to public law, including states, municipalities, and regulatory agencies. As of 2017, the CAMARB Arbitration Rules began specifically regulating proceedings involving the participation of the Public Administration through a dedicated chapter, which includes, among others, the provision: “12.2 — The CAMARB Secretariat shall disclose on its website the existence of the proceedings, the date of the request for arbitration, and the names of the claimant(s) and respondent(s).” Its website includes a list of arbitration proceedings, with parties subject to the Public Law regime, initiated from September 2017 onwards, detailing proceeding number, date of request, parties (claimant and respondent), status (ongoing or concluded).
The State of São Paulo boasts the highest number of arbitral institutions, likely due to its status as the most economically powerful state. The following chart demonstrates the situation across some of the primary state jurisdictions:[69]
|
STATE |
CHAMBERS |
|
RS |
|
|
SP |
|
|
RJ |
|
|
MG |
|
Law No. 13.129/2015 dispels any doubts regarding the validity of arbitration within the public sector. Article 2, Paragraph 3, specifically, establishes the principle of publicity. This reinforces the constitutional right of access to public information, from which the Access to Information Law (LAI) stems However, conflicts occasionally arise with other constitutional guarantees, such as confidentiality, under Article 5, LX, and the right to the protection of personal data, under Article 5, LXXIX.
Cyber-transparency requires that information be made available online for citizens and oversight bodies, so that stakeholders can actively monitor and audit arbitrations involving the Public Administration. Publicity is the general rule but may be restricted depending on the specific circumstances and the overriding effects of other rights.
Arbitration law uses the term confidentiality, while the Constitution and other laws prefer the word secrecy (article 5, LX, of the Federal Constitution). Semantic labels and their effects may be equated. Confidentiality is cited as grounds for credibility among users, especially in the international and private arbitration context. In Brazil, confidentiality is restricted when the Judiciary enforces arbitration awards under the Arbitration Law.
The Access to Information Law (LAI) governs transparency practices across direct and indirect administration agencies, without distinguishing between public and private legal entities. Article 3 of the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD) governs its application to both the public and private sectors, while Chapter IV outlines specific rules regarding government data Thus, both laws apply to the public and private sectors, and the specific case and criteria determine the prevailing rule.
Article 3, Item 3, of the LAI regulates the principle of publicity, while item II makes disclosure contingent upon public interest. Furthermore, Article 22 of the LAI refers to confidentiality and secrecy in legal proceedings. To appeal denied access requests under Article 16 of the LAI, administrative recourse generally lies with the Joint Commission for Information Reevaluation (CMRI), under the CGU, following a denial issued by the superior authority. However, for arbitration in the public sector, the Chambers play a crucial role.
Debate surrounds the legal status of the public administration when acting as a party to arbitration. Although the principle of administrative supremacy may be mitigated, it is argued that constitutional precepts guiding both public and private relations apply, reflecting the German law concept of Drittwirkung.
Arbitration in the public sector is increasing, but it is not yet widespread. Based on empirical study, to date only 12 states in the federation have arbitration regulations in the public sector, which can be categorized into 4 groups, as some omit to address the matter while others do so in a unique manner. The remaining 14 states and the Federal District have no such regulations. Thus, despite the progress made in the last decade in this area, of 26 states, more than half of these federative entities have yet to implement their own framework. The municipalities were not analyzed due to the large number (over 5,560) and diversity.
Local authorities operating under a special regime – the Regulatory Agencies – do not present a uniform picture in this regard. ANEEL, ANATEL, and ANTT are increasingly incorporating the use of arbitration into their dispute resolution practices. ANATEL has specific guidelines on the topic.
Arbitration chambers have an important role to play. CAMARB, for example, has administered 30 (thirty) proceedings involving parties subject to public law regimes, such as states, municipalities, and regulatory agencies. Since 2017 CAMARB Arbitration Regulations have specifically governed procedures involving the Public Administration. In accordance with item 12.2 of CAMARB Arbitration Rules (2017 and 2019), a list of proceedings involving public law entities since September 2017 is available on its website, detailing the case number, request date, names of the claimant and respondent, and whether the dispute is ongoing or concluded.
While public sector arbitration has undeniably expanded in Brazil, a clear lack of procedural uniformity persists. This research sought to clarify the scope and limits of the principle of constitutional transparency within a networked society, providing a systematic interpretation of the framework. The significance of cyber-transparency is underscored, to ensure that acts carried out by the public authorities are made available to citizens.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ÁGUAS E SANEAMENTO BÁSICO (ANA) (Brasil). Aviso de Consulta Pública nº 01, de 13 de fevereiro de 2025. [Brasília, DF]: ANA, 2025. Available at: https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/aviso-de-consulta-publica-n-1/2025-de-13-de-fevereiro-de-2025-612744304 and https://participacao-social.ana.gov.br/Consulta/210. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE AVIAÇÃO CIVIL (ANAC) (Brasil). Available at: https://www.anac.gov.br/assuntos/legislacao/busca-legislacao#b_start=0&c4=arbitrage. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ENERGIA ELÉTRICA (ANEEL) (Brasil). Portaria nº 6.840, de 3 de julho de 2023. Brasília, DF: ANEEL, 2023. Available at: https://www2.aneel.gov.br/cedoc/prt20236840.pdf. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE MINERAÇÃO (ANM) (Brasil). Available at: https://anmlegis.datalegis.net/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=consultarAtosInicial&cod_modulo=351&cod_menu=8014&generalSearch=true. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE MINERAÇÃO (ANM) (Brasil). Tomada de Subsídios nº 3, de 14 de maio de 2021. Brasília, DF: ANM, 2021. Available at: https://anmlegis.datalegis.net/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=detalharAto&type=TMS&numeroAto=00000003&seqAto=000&yearValue = 2021&organ=SRG/ANM/MME&codTipo=&desItem=&desItemFim=&cod_menu=8014&cod_modulo=351&search=true. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE SAÚDE SUPLEMENTAR (ANS) (Brasil). Plano de Saúde Mediação de Conflitos: informações importantes sobre a resolução de problemas entre beneficiários e operadoras. Brasília, DF: ANS, [202-?]. Available at: https://www.gov.br/ans/pt-br/arquivos/assuntos/consumidor/caminho-do-consumidor/cartilha-nip.pdf. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE TELECOMUNICAÇÕES (ANATEL) (Brasil). Resolução Anatel nº 768, de 19 de agosto de 2024. [Brasília, DF]: ANATEL, 2024. Available at: https://informacoes.anatel.gov.br/legislacao/resolucoes/1973-resolucao-768. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE TRANSPORTES AQUÁTICOS (ANTAQ) (Brasil). Resolução nº 98, de 31 de maio de 2023. [Brasília, DF]: ANTAQ, 2023. Available at: https://juris.antaq.gov.br/index.php/2023/06/01/98-2023/. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE TRANSPORTES TERRESTRES (ANTT) (Brasil). Resolução nº 5.845, de 14 de maio de 2019. Brasília, DF: ANTT, 2019. Available at: https://anttlegis.antt.gov.br/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=abrirTextoAto&link=S&type=RES&numeroAto=00005845&seqAto=000&yearValue=2019&organ=DG/ANTT/MI&cod_modulo=161&cod_menu=7796. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE VIGILÂNCIA SANITÁRIA (ANVISA) (Brasil). Portaria nº 109, de 8 de fevereiro de 2023. [Brasília, DF]: ANVISA, 2023. Available at: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/canais_atendimento/ouvidoria/portaria-109_2023-resolucao-pacifica-de-conflitos-bs-13-de-fevereiro-de-2022.pdf. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DO CINEMA (ANCINE) (Brasil). Instrução Normativa nº 100, de 29 de maio de 2012. [Brasília, DF]: ANCINE, 2012. Available at: https://www.gov.br/ancine/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/legislacao/instrucoes-normativas/instrucao-normativa-100. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DO PETRÓLEO, GÁS NATURAL E BIOCOMBUSTÍVEIS (ANP) (Brasil). Resolução de Diretoria nº 109, de 29 de fevereiro de 2000. Brasília, DF: ANP, 2000. Available at: https://atosoficiais.com.br/anp/resolucao-de-diretoria-n-109-2000-regulamento-conjunto-sobre-arbitragem-entre-as-agencias-anatel-aneel-anp?origin=instituicao. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
ARBITRAGENS com a Administração Pública. In: CAMARB. [S.l.], [2025]. Available at: https://camarb.com.br/arbitragem/arbitragens-com-a-administracao-publica/. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
BARTNIK, Marcel. Der Bildnisschtz im Deutschen und französichen Zivilrecht. Tübigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
BRASIL. Decreto-Lei nº 200, de 25 de fevereiro de 1967. Provides for the organization of the Federal Administration, establishes guidelines for Administrative Reform, among other measures. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 1967. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto-lei/del0200.htm. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
BRASIL. Lei nº 12.527, de 18 de novembro de 2011. Regulates access to information as provided for in item XXXIII of article 5, item II of paragraph 3 of article 37 and paragraph 2 of article 216 of the Federal Constitution [...]. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 2011. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/lei/l12527.htm. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
BRASIL. Lei nº 13.709, de 14 de agosto de 2018. Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais (LGPD). Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 2018. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2018/lei/l13709.htm. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
BRASIL. Lei nº 14.129, de 29 de março de 2021. It establishes the principles, rules, and instruments for Digital Government and for increasing public efficiency [...]. Brasília, DF: Presidência da República, 2021. Available at: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2021/lei/l14129.htm. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
BRASIL. Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF). Plenário. Recurso Extraordinário com Agravo nº 652.777 São Paulo. CONSTITUCIONAL. Publication of the names of its employees and their salaries, on a Municipality of São Paulo website. [...]. Recorrente: Município de São Paulo. Recorrido: Ana Maria Andreu Lacambra. Relator: Min. Teori Zavascki, April 23. 2015. Available at: https://redir.stf.jus.br/paginadorpub/paginador.jsp?docTP=TP&docID=8831570. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
CÂMARA DE MEDIAÇÃO E ARBITRAGEM EMPRESARIAL (CAMARB) — BRASIL. Regulamento de Arbitragem. [S.l.]: CAMARB, 2019. Available at: https://camarb.com.br/site/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/regulamento-de-arbitragem-camarb-2019.pdf. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
CANNARIS, Wilhelm Claus. Pensamento sistemático e conceito de sistema na ciência do direito. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbekian, 1989.
GUARD, Joseph. Fundamentos da Constituição. Coimbra: Coimbra Ed. 1991,
CARDOSO, Paula Butti. Informações nº 03/2020/CODNEA/ANEA/CGU/AGU/NUP 00688.001198/2020-19, de 23/11/2020.
CARVALHO FILHO, José dos Santos. Manual de Direito Administrativo. 32. ed., São Paulo: Gen Atlas, 2018.
CASTELLS, Manuel. A Sociedade em Rede: a era da informação - economia, sociedade e cultura. 4. ed. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 2011.
CASTELLS, Manuel. Comunicación y Poder. Traducción de María Hernández Díaz. Alianza Editorial: Madrid, 2009.
CONSELHO NACIONAL DAS INSTITUIÇÕES DE MEDIAÇÃO E ARBITRAGEM (CONIMA). Código de Ética das Instituições. São Paulo, SP: CONIMA, 2010. Available at: https://conima.org.br/institucional/codigo-de-etica-das-instituicoes/. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
DI PIETRO, Maria Sylvia Zanella. Direito Administrativo. 31. ed. São Paulo: Gen Forense, 2018.
ESPÍRITO SANTO. Lei nº 10.885, de 31 de julho de 2018. It provides for the adoption of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes in which the State is a party among other measures. Vitória: Palácio Anchieta, 2018. Available at: https://www3.al.es.gov.br/Arquivo/Documents/legislacao/html/LeOr108852018.html. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
GIBSON, William. Neuromancer. 5ª ed. São Paulo: Aleph, 2016.
GOIÁS. Decreto nº 9.929, de 24 de agosto de 2021. Provides for the use of arbitration to resolve disputes in which the state public administration is a party. Goiânia: [sl], 2021. Available at: https://goias.gov.br/procuradoria/wp-content/uploads/sites/41/2019/09/Decreto9.929-820.pdf. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
Working Group of Article 29, in Dicctamen 3/99, relating to Public Sector Information and personal data protection, approved on 03/MAY/2003.
GUERRA, Sérgio. Agências Reguladoras: da organização piramidal à sociedade em rede. 3ª ed. Belo Horizonte: Fórum, 2023.
HOFFMANN-RIEM, Wolfang. Teoria do Direito Digital: transformação digital: desafios para o direito. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2021.
HOUAISS Antonio et al. Dicionário HOUAISS de língua portuguesa. Objetiva: Rio de Janeiro:
HUBMANN, Heirich. Das Persönlichkeitsrechtd. 2ª ed., Köln: Böhlau, 1967.
IV Encuentro de Agencias Autonómicas de Protección de Datos, Vitoria, 23 y 24 de octubre de 2007. Available at: https://www.avpd.euskadi.eus/s04-20375/es/contenidos/evento/4_encuentro_apds/es_intro/programa.html. Accessed on: 25 Jan. 2025.
LEMES, Selma. Arbitragem. Princípios jurídicos fundamentais. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, vol. 81, nº 686, dez/1992.
LIMBERGER, Themis. CIBERTRANSPARÊNCIA: informação pública em rede — a virtualidade e suas consequências na realidade. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2016.
LIMBERGER, Themis. Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (LGPD) e a Lei de Acesso à informação pública (LAI): um diálogo (im)possível? As influências do direito europeu. Revista de Direito Administrativo, Rio de Janeiro, v. 281, n. 1, p. 113-144, jan./abr. 2022.
MAGIDE HERRERO, Mariano. Límites constitucionales de las administraciones independientes. Madrid: INAP, 2000.
MARTINS, Guilherme et al. (Coordenadores). Comentários à LGPD. 3ª ed., Indaituba: Ed Foco, 2025.
MATO GROSSO DO SUL. Lei nº 4.610, de 18 de dezembro de 2014. Provides for the adoption of arbitration for the resolution of disputes in which the State of Mato Grosso do Sul is a party among other measures. Campo Grande: [sl], 2014. Available at: https://aacpdappls.net.ms.gov.br/appls/legislacao/secoge/govato.nsf/448b683bce4ca84704256c0b00651e9d/27ca47bd214c2aba04257db30040ed2d?OpenDocument. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
Minas Gerais. Lei nº 19.477, de 12 de janeiro de 2011. Provides for the adoption of arbitration for the resolution of disputes in which the State is a party among measures. Belo Horizonte: Palácio Tiradentes, 2011. Available at: https://www.almg.gov.br/legislacao-mineira/texto/LEI/19477/2011/. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
MOREIRA NETO, Diogo de Figueiredo. Direito Regulatório. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 2003.
MOREIRA NETO, Diogo de Figueiredo. Quatro paradigmas do direito administrativo pós-moderno: legitimidade, finalidade, eficiência e resultados. Belo Horizonte: Forum, 2008.
NORA, Simon; MINC, Alain. Informe Nora-Minc — La informatización de la sociedad. Madrid: [S.n.], 1982. (Colección popular).
PARANÁ. Decreto nº 10.499, de 02 de julho de 2025. Regulates alternative dispute resolution methods in the State of Paraná. Curitiba: [s.l.], 2025. Available at: https://www.legislacao.pr.gov.br/legislacao/listarAtosAno.do?action=exibir&codAto=364457&index=4&totalRecords=187&yearSpan=2025&SelectedYear=2025&selectedMonth=7&isPaginado=true. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
PIAUÍ. Attorney General's Office of the State of Piauí. Ordinance No. 143, of September 15, 2021. Official Gazette of the State of Piauí: Teresina, PI, no. 201, p. 26. Available at: http://www.diariooficial.pi.gov.br/diario/202109/DIARIO15_3873b2b6e6.pdf. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
PIÑAR MAÑAS, José Luis et al. El derecho a protección de datos em la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea. Madrid: La Ley, 2018.
RIO GRANDE DO SUL. Decreto nº 55.996, de 14 de julho de 2021. This law addresses the use of arbitration in the direct and indirect public administration of the State of Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre: Palácio Piratini, 2021. Available at: https://www.diariooficial.rs.gov.br/materia?id=570403. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
RUIZ SANCHEZ, Pedro. El orden público en el arbitraje en España. Madrid: (Ed.). Dykson, 2024.
SANTA CATARINA. Decreto nº 2.241, de 31 de outubro de 2022. Governs articles 21 and 22 of Law No. 18.302 of 2021, to provide for the arbitration agreement and the inclusion of a mediation clause. Florianópolis: [s.l.], 2022. Available at: http://server03.pge.sc.gov.br/LegislacaoEstadual/2022/002241-005-0-2022-002.htm. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
SARLET, Ingo Wolfgang et al (Coord.). Acesso à informação como direito fundamental e dever estatal. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2016.
SIQUEIRA, Bruno. IBGE divulga recortes geográficos do país atualizados para 2024. [S.l.], 24 jun. 2025. Available at: https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-agencia-de-noticias/noticias/43754-ibge-divulga-recortes-geograficos-do-pais-atualizados-para-2024. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
SOLOVE, Daniel J. The Digital Person. Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. New York: New York University Press, 2004.
TRINTADE, Manoel Gustavo Neubarth et al (Organizadores). Temas Emergentes em Arbitragem: estudos em comemoração aos 10 anos da equipe de arbitragem da Unisinos. Londrina: Thoth, 2025.
TORRE, Ricardo Giuliano Figueira. Arbitragem com a Administração Pública Brasileira e a (In)segurança jurídica: reflexões teóricas e práticas. São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2017. p. 617-638.
TOTTI, Aristhéa; UGGERI, Márcia; NUNES, Tatiana Mesquita (Coordenadoras). Elas escrevem sobre arbitragem. Escola Superior da Advocacia-Geral da União: Publicações da Escola Superior da AGU, Brasília, DF, v. 16, n. 01, mar. 2024. Available at: https://revistaagu.agu.gov.br/index.php/EAGU/issue/view/182/366. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
UNIÃO EUROPEIA. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation). Brussels, EU: Council of the European Union, 2016. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/PT/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679. Accessed on: 15 Oct. 2025.
Additional information
|
Editors in charge |
|
|
Editor-in-chief / Editor-in-chief |
Sérgio Guerra |
|
Assistant editor / Assistant editor |
Luis Lopes Martins |
Data availability statement
Data availability statement
No datasets were generated or analyzed within the scope of this study. This work is based exclusively on bibliographic and documentary research. Additional information may be requested from the authors, where applicable.
Licensing
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution – Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
* Article received on October 28, 2025 and approved on December 23, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12660/rda.v285.2026.94636. ↑
** ICC Certified Arbitrator. Attorney. Professor at the PPGD (Postgraduate Program in Law) at UNISINOS. Bachelor's and Master's in Law from UFRGS. PhD in Law from Universidade Pompeu Fabra (Barcelona). Post-doctoral studies at the University of Seville. Retired Public Prosecutor, MP/RS (Rio Grande do Sul State Public Prosecutor's Office). Country: BRAZIL. Email: temisl@unisinos.br. ↑
LIMBERGER, Themis. CIBERTRANSPARÊNCIA: informação pública em rede — a virtualidade e suas consequências na realidade. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2016, pp. 45 et seq. ↑
GIBSON, William. Neuromancer. 5th Ed. São Paulo: Aleph, 2016, p.80. ↑
TRINDADE, Manoel Gustavo Neubarth et al. O third party funding na arbitragem: um estudo sob a perspectiva da análise econômica do direito. In Temas Emergentes em Arbitragem: estudos em comemoração aos 10 anos da equipe de arbitragem da Unisinos. TRINDADE, Manoel Gustavo Neubarth et al. Organizadores. Londrina: Thoth, 2025, p. 38. Resource scarcity drives economic agents to manage their assets as efficiently as possible. ↑
To determine what constitutes data, we adopt the definition of Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem in Teoria do Direito Digital: transformação digital: desafios para o direito. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2021.
Data are understood as encoded signals or characters conveying messages that can be formalized, (randomly) reproduced, and easily transferred via suitable technical means. Data, as such, have no meaning. However, they carry information, or, strictly, 'coded information'. Meaning is assigned to them when they are involved in a process where a sender communicates information and a recipient generates knowledge—that is, when they become the object of communication. Such communication can occur between humans, but also between humans and machines or between machines. Data are signs or symbols, similar to numbers, and when not interpreted, they are formal in nature. They can be reproduced or transmitted through specific procedures and depend on a technical, and therefore physical, medium. Furthermore, they do not merely assume a semantic form, which is distinct from the information processed by them. ↑
The provisions of Article 5, X and LX, of the Federal Constitution embraced the distinction originating from German doctrine and jurisprudence, known as the theory of spheres (Sphärentheorie), developed by Heinrich Hubmann. Das Persönlichkeitsrechtd. 2ª ed., Köln: Böhlau, 1967. Hubmann contends that lives are lived in different spheres of protection, which encompass the values inherent to their personality and are sufficient for their safeguarding. The spheres of private life encompass the degree of interference an individual tolerates in relation to third parties. In the outer circle lies privacy, in the middle intimacy, and in the inner, secrecy. Tthe configuration has since been reviewed and updated. The prevailing understanding is now that of Marcel Bartnik, in Der Bildnisschtz im Deutschen und französichen Zivilrecht. Tübigen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004, who recognizes three spheres: the intimate the private and the public. ↑
Confidencial 1[…] 2 não divulgável, sigiloso, secreto[…]. HOUAISS Antonio et al. Dicionário HOUAISS de língua portuguesa. Objetiva: Rio de Janeiro, 2009, p. 519. ↑
Law No. 105/2001, which deals with tax confidentiality, and the Medical Code of Ethics — Resolution No. 1931/2009. ↑
RUIZ SANCHEZ, Pedro. El orden público en el arbitraje en España. Madrid: (Ed.). Dykson, 2024, p. 341. Public policy has a substantive meaning when comprised of the principles and rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The procedural content refers to the guarantees of due process of law enshrined in Article 24 of the EC, which must be adapted to the arbitration procedure. ↑
LIMBERGER, Themis. Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (LGPD) e a Lei de Acesso à informação pública (LAI): um diálogo (im)possível? As influências do direito europeu. Revista de Direito Administrativo, Rio de Janeiro, v. 281, n. 1, jan./abr. 2022, pp. 113-144. ↑
"Article 23 — The processing of personal data by the public entities listed in the sole paragraph of Article 1 of Law No. 12.527/2011 (the Access to Information Act) must serve the public interest, exercise their legal powers or fulfil their institutional duties, provided that: […]”. Hence, a clear reference is made to local authorities, which are legal entities under public law. LIMBERGER, Têmis. Comentários ao Livro IV da LGPD — Do tratamento de dados pessoais pelo Poder Público. In Comentários à LGPD. Guilherme Martins et al. Coordenadores. 3ª ed., Indaituba: Ed Foco, 2025, pp. 325/369. For more in-depth discussion, see the comments. ↑
PIÑAR MAÑAS, José Luis et al. El derecho a protección de datos em la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea. Madrid: La Ley, 2018, p. 29, caso Volker und Markus Schecke y Eifert, TJUE, sentença de 09.11.2010. ↑
Recital 4. "The processing of personal data should be conceived to serve the people." The right to the protection of personal data is not absolute; it must be considered in relation to its function in society and balanced with other fundamental rights, in accordance with the principle of proportionality. […]” ↑
Recital 39: "The processing of personal data must be carried out lawfully and fairly." Individuals must be clearly informed when their personal data is collected and used, and they have a right to know exactly what is being processed. The principle of transparency requires that information or communications relating to the processing of this data are easily accessible and understandable, and formulated in clear and simple language. […]” ↑
SOLOVE, Daniel J. The Digital Person. Technology and Privacy in the Information Age. New York: New York University Press, 2004, p. 150. ↑
IV Encuentro de Agencias Autonómicas de Protección de Datos, Vitoria, 23 y 24 de octubre de 2007. Available at: https://www.avpd.euskadi.eus/s04-20375/es/contenidos/evento/4_encuentro_apds/es_intro/programa.html. Accessed on: 25 Jan. 2025. ↑
PIÑAR MAÑAS, José Luis. Transparencia y protección de datos. Una referencia de la Ley Española 19/2013 de transparencia, acceso a la información y buen gobierno. In: SARLET, Ingo Wolfgang et al (Coord.). Acesso à informação como direito fundamental e dever estatal. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2016, p. 77. ↑
Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, Opinion 3/99 on Public Sector Information and the Protection of Personal Data, adopted on May 3, 1999. ↑
CASTELLS, Manuel. Comunicación y Poder. Traducción de María Hernández Díaz. Alianza Editorial: Madrid, 2009, p.85. ↑
NORA, Simon; MINC, Alain. Informe Nora-Minc — La informatización de la sociedad. Madrid: [S.n.], 1982, p. 18 (Colección popular). ↑
CASTELLS, Manuel. A Sociedade em Rede: a era da informação — economia, sociedade e cultura. 4. ed. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, 2011, pp. 123-124. ↑
MOREIRA NETO, Diogo de Figueiredo. Quatro paradigmas do direito administrativo pós-moderno: legitimidade, finalidade, eficiência e resultados. Belo Horizonte: Forum, 2008, p. 53. ↑
CARVALHO FILHO, José dos Santos. Manual de Direito Administrativo. 32. ed., São Paulo: Gen Atlas, 2018, p. 103, critiques the expression “act of government”, arguing that it is already encompassed by the concept “administrative act”. Administrative Acts has a broad meaning and refers to any and all acts originating from the numerous bodies that make up the administrative system in any of the branches of government. The key criterion is the "origin" of the expression of will, coming from the Public Administration. While some authors refer to these as political or governmental acts (referencing Celso Antônio Bandeira de Mello, Curso de Direito Administrativo, 17th ed., Malheiros, 2004, pp. 172–173), Carvalho Filho takes issue with this position, arguing that because all official acts are ultimately derived from the Law and the Constitution, the expression 'acts of government or political acts' remains open to criticism. DI PIETRO, Maria Sylvia Zanella. Direito Administrativo. 31. ed. São Paulo: adhering to traditional legal doctrine, Di Pietro (Gen/Forense, 2018, pp. 79, 84) maintains that the political function is primarily carried out by the head of the Executive branch, although it remains a non-exclusive prerogative, vis-a-vis the distinction between Public Administration and Government (in a more political sense). Consequently, examples of the latter include extraordinary sessions of the National Congress, the establishment of Parliamentary Inquiry Committees, relations with foreign States, declaration of war and conclusion of peace, or of a state of siege or emergency, and federal intervention. ↑
LIMBERGER, Themis. Cibertransparência: informação pública em rede — a virtualidade e suas repercussões na realidade. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2016, on the notion of the principle of publicity and transparency, pp. 41-48. ↑
Governo Digital (Law No. 14,129/2021) establishes the same standard in Article 4, XI, defining active transparency as the disclosure of data by the public administration independent of formal requests. ↑
LIMBERGER, Têmis, Cibertransparência: informação pública em rede — a virtualidade e suas repercussões na realidade. Porto Alegre: Livraria do Advogado, 2007, p. 54-58. Regarding the disclosure of public servant salaries, the Supreme Court ruled in Extraordinary Appeal (ARE) 652.777 (General Repercussion Theme 483) that publishing individual names is lawful, overriding arguments that linking salaries to a registration number sufficed. Should any discrepancy be identified relative to peers in equivalent positions, specific information may then be requested IIn any event, despite the aforementioned ruling, private information—such as alimony deductions, health insurance plans, and mortgage payments—must still be protected. ↑
Article 3 – This Law applies to any processing operation carried out by a natural person or by a legal entity, whether governed by public or private law, regardless of the means used, the country of its headquarters, or the country where the data is located, provided that I — the operation is carried out within the national territory […]. ↑
Entities included in the indirect administration are linked to the Ministry within whose area of competence their main activity falls (Article 4, sole paragraph, of Decree-Law 200/67, amended by Law 7.596/87). ↑
Indirect Administration refers to the group of administrative bodies that operate under their respective Direct Administration to undertake government activities through a decentralized framework. ↑
MOREIRA NETO, Diogo de Figueiredo. Direito Regulatório. Rio de Janeiro: Renovar, 2003, p. 37. ↑
LIMBERGER, Têmis. Comentários ao Livro IV da LGPD — Do tratamento de dados pessoais pelo Poder Público. In Comentários à LGPD. Guilherme Martins et al. Coordenadores. 3ª ed., Indaituba: Ed Foco, 2025, pp. 325/369. Para aprofundar o tema, vide comentários. ↑
CANNARIS, Wilhelm Claus. Pensamento sistemático e conceito de sistema na ciência do direito. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1989, pp. 22/23. ↑
TORRE, Ricardo Giuliano Figueira. Arbitragem com a Administração Pública Brasileira e a (In)segurança jurídica: reflexões teóricas e práticas. São Paulo: Quartier Latin, 2024, p.284. ↑
Article 3. The procedures established by law are intended to ensure the fundamental right of access to information and must be carried out in accordance with the basic principles of administration and the following guidelines: I — the observance of publicity as a general rule and confidentiality as an exception, II — the disclosure of information of public interest, independent of any request, III — the utilization of communication channels made viable by information technology, IV — the promotion of a culture of transparency within the public administration, and V — the development of civic oversight within the public administration. ↑
Article 22 — The provisions of this Law do not exclude other legal grounds for confidentiality or judicial secrecy, nor do they exclude cases involving trade secrets resulting from the direct exploitation of economic activity by the State or by any natural person or private entity linked to the public administration. ↑
CARDOSO, Paula Butti. Informações nº 03/2020/CODNEA/ANEA/CGU/AGU/NUP 00688.001198/2020-19, de 23/11/2020. ↑
BARALDI, Eliana et al. Arbitragem e a administração pública: desafios da transparência In Elas escrevem sobre arbitragem. TOTTI, Aristhéa, UGGERI, Márcia, NUNES, Tatiana Mesquita Coordenadoras, p. 120/121. ↑
CANOTILHO, José Joaquim Gomes .et al. Fundamentos da Constituição. Coimbra: Coimbra Ed. 1991, p. 608. É a denominada eficácia horizontal dos direitos fundamentais, denominada de drittwirkung pelo direito alemão. ↑
https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/agencia-noticias/2012-agencia-de-noticias/noticias/43754-ibge-divulga-recortes-geograficos-do-pais-atualizados-para-2024. Accessed on 22/08/2025. ↑
Art. 22. The provisions of this Law do not exclude other legal grounds for confidentiality and judicial secrecy, nor cases of industrial secrecy arising from the direct exploitation of economic activity by the State or by any natural person or entity with any link to the public administration. ↑
Article 14 — the arbitration process and the information regarding the process shall be public, except for that necessary for the preservation of industrial or commercial secrets and that considered confidential under Brazilian legislation. ↑
Article 23 — Arbitration shall observe the principle of publicity, respecting the rules pertaining to the confidentiality of public documents. ↑
Article 12 — The acts of the arbitration procedure shall be public, except in cases where confidentiality or secrecy of justice is legally required. ↑
Article 12 — The acts of the arbitration procedure shall be public, except in cases where confidentiality or court secrecy is legally required. ↑
LEMES, Selma. Arbitragem. Princípios jurídicos fundamentais. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, vol. 81, no. 686, Dec/1992, pp. 31-57. ↑
Article 6 — For the purposes of this Law, only arbitration based on legal rules, through public proceedings, shall be permitted. ↑
Article 6 — For the purposes of this Law, only arbitration based on legal rules, through public proceedings, shall be permitted ↑
Article 6 — Only arbitration based on legal rules, through public proceedings, shall be permitted ↑
Art. 2º da Portaria nº 143/2021 da PGE-PI. Although there is no specific mention of arbitration, the State Attorney General’s Office established the Chamber for the Prevention and Resolution of Administrative Conflicts. ↑
MAGIDE HERRERO, Mariano. Límites constitucionales de las administraciones independientes. Madrid: INAP, 2000, p. 136. ↑
GUERRA, Sérgio. Agências Reguladoras: da organização piramidal à sociedade em rede. 3ª ed. Belo Horizonte: Fórum, 2023, p. 64 e segs. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE TRANSPORTES TERRESTRES (ANTT) (Brasil). Resolução nº 5.845, de 14 de maio de 2019. Brasília, DF: ANTT, 2019. Available at: https://anttlegis.antt.gov.br/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=abrirTextoAto&link=S&type=RES&numeroAto=00005845&seqAto=000&yearValue=2019&organ=DG/ANTT/MI&cod_modulo=161&cod_menu=7796. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE TELECOMUNICAÇÕES (ANATEL) (Brasil). Resolução Anatel nº 768, de 19 de agosto de 2024. Brasília, DF: ANATEL, 2024. Available at: https://informacoes.anatel.gov.br/legislacao/resolucoes/1973-resolucao-768. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ENERGIA ELÉTRICA (ANEEL) (Brasil). Portaria nº 6.840, de 3 de julho de 2023. Brasília, DF: ANEEL, 2023. Available at: https://www2.aneel.gov.br/cedoc/prt20236840.pdf. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. ↑
Article 36. Regulatory arbitration consists of an administrative proceeding based on Law No. 9,784 of January 29, 1999, for the resolution of conflicts within the regulated sector. Final adjudication falls within the competence of ANTAQ's Board of Directors and involves the application of laws, regulations, and public contracts, as well as private contracts executed pursuant to Article 5-A of Law No. 12,815 of June 5, 2013. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DO PETRÓLEO, GÁS NATURAL E BIOCOMBUSTÍVEIS (ANP) (Brasil). Resolução de Diretoria nº 109, de 29 de fevereiro de 2000. [Brasília, DF]: ANP, 2000. Available at: https://atosoficiais.com.br/anp/resolucao-de-diretoria-n-109-2000-regulamento-conjunto-sobre-arbitragem-entre-as-agencias-anatel-aneel-anp?origin=instituicao. Accessed on: 17 Oct. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ÁGUAS E SANEAMENTO BÁSICO (ANA) (Brasil). Aviso de Consulta Pública nº 01, de 13 de fevereiro de 2025. [Brasília, DF]: ANA, 2025. Available at: https://www.in.gov.br/en/web/dou/-/aviso-de-consulta-publica-n-1/2025-de-13-de-fevereiro-de-2025-612744304 and https://participacao-social.ana.gov.br/Consulta/210. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DO CINEMA (ANCINE) (Brasil). Instrução Normativa nº 100, de 29 de maio de 2012. [Brasília, DF]: ANCINE, 2012. Available at: https://www.gov.br/ancine/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/legislacao/instrucoes-normativas/instrucao-normativa-100. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE VIGILÂNCIA SANITÁRIA (ANVISA) (Brasil). Portaria nº 109, de 8 de fevereiro de 2023. [Brasília, DF]: ANVISA, 2023. Available at: https://www.gov.br/anvisa/pt-br/canais_atendimento/ouvidoria/portaria-109_2023-resolucao-pacifica-de-conflitos-bs-13-de-fevereiro-de-2022.pdf. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE SAÚDE SUPLEMENTAR (ANS) (Brasil). Plano de Saúde Mediação de Conflitos: informações importantes sobre a resolução de problemas entre beneficiários e operadoras. Brasília, DF: ANS, [202-?]. Available at: https://www.gov.br/ans/pt-br/arquivos/assuntos/consumidor/caminho-do-consumidor/cartilha-nip.pdf. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE AVIAÇÃO CIVIL (ANAC) (Brasil). Research conducted on the ANAC legislation portal Available at: https://www.anac.gov.br/assuntos/legislacao/busca-legislacao#b_start=0&c4=arbitrage. Accessed on: 17 Oct. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE MINERAÇÃO (ANM) (Brasil). Research conducted on the ANM legislation portal. Available at: https://anmlegis.datalegis.net/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=consultarAtosInicial&cod_modulo=351&cod_menu=8014&generalSearch=true. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. = 2021&organ=SRG/ANM/MME&codTipo=&desItem=&desItemFim=&cod_menu=8014&cod_modulo=351&search=true. Accessed on: 17 Aug. 2025. ↑
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE MINERAÇÃO (ANM) (Brasil). Request for Public Comment No. 3, dated May 14, 2021. [Brasília, DF]: ANM, 2021. Available at: https://anmlegis.datalegis.net/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=detalharAto&type=TMS&numeroAto=00000003&seqAto=000&yearValue ↑
https://conima.org.br/instituciona/codigo-de-etica-das-instituições. Accessed on: 18 Aug. 2025 ↑
The five-year period is the most common in public administration. See, for example, article 173, I, of Código Tributário Nacional. ↑
Art. 13.6 “five (5) years after the final arbitral award is rendered, CAMARB may discard the records of the proceedings, retaining only the awards in its archives” https://camarb.com.br/regulamento-de-arbitragem-camarb-2019_atualizado2019.pdf. Accessed on: 18 Aug. 2025 ↑
https://camarb.com.br/arbitragem/arbitragens-com-a-administracao-publica/. ↑
The selection was based on sectors exhibiting some of the highest utilization rates of arbitration within the public sphere. ↑