Factors increasing case disposition time in Brazil
Main Article Content
Abstract
Judicial delay in Brazil is a severe and persistent problem. This work helps to understand the causes of this issue, by identifying and discussing 12 factors that increase the length of the judicial process in the country. These factors were identified through content analysis of interviews with 15 key players in the Brazilian justice system, including judges, prosecutors, and lawyers. Each factor was discussed based on academic literature, official reports, and performance indicators. The research findings show that factors such as the low cost of filling, the absence of punishment for repetitive litigants, and tax foreclosures promote an overload of processes in the courts. The Judiciary also seems to be burdened with attributions beyond the jurisdictional function, such as collecting evidence and locating debtors and assets. The excess of disputes and assignments has made the Brazilian judicial machine large, slow, and expensive. Public policies to reduce judicial delays in the country are suggested.
Downloads
Article Details
The Brazilian Journal of Public Administration (RAP) undertakes to contribute to the protection of authors’ intellectual rights. On this matter:
- It uses the Creative Commons BY (CC-BY) license for all texts it publishes, except when there is indication of specific holders of copyrights and property rights;
- It uses the similarity verification software of content - Plagiarism (Crossref Similarity Check);
- It takes actions to fight against plagiarism and ethical misconduct aligned with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Further information on the Code of Ethics adopted by RAP can be found in Ethical Standards and Code of Conduct.
References
American Bar Association (2022). ABA profile of the legal profession. American Bar Association.
Arake, H., & Gico, I. T., Jr. (2014). De graça, até injeção na testa: análise juseconômica da gratuidade de Justiça. Economic Analysis of Law Review, 5(1), 166-178. https://doi.org/10.18836/2178-0587/ealr.v5n1p166-178
Bacellar, R. P. (2013). Juiz servidor, gestor e mediador. Escola Nacional de Formação e Aperfeiçoamento de Magistrados Ministro Sálvio de Figueiredo Teixeira.
Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo. Edição 70.
Boni, V., & Quaresma, S. J. (2005). Aprendendo a entrevistar: como fazer entrevistas em Ciências Sociais. Em Tese, 2(1), 68-80. https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/emtese/article/view/18027
Buonanno, P., & Galizzi, M. M. (2014). Advocatus, et non latro? Testing the excess of litigation in the Italian courts of justice. Review of Law & Economics, 10(3), 285-322. https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2014-0022
Castelliano, C., Grajzl, P., & Watanabe, E. (2022). Multidomain judging and administration of justice: evidence from a major emerging-market jurisdiction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 89(2), 577-594. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208523221084921
Castelliano, C., & Guimaraes, T. A. (2023). Court disposition time in Brazil and in European countries. Revista Direito GV, 19, e2302. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202302
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2019). Relatório Anual da Ouvidoria 2018. https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/6f5cd863e4fc7df2397866c692301712.pdf
Conselho Nacional de Justiça (2022). Relatório Justiça em Números 2022. https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/justica-em-numeros-2022-1.pdf
Cooter, R. D., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1994). An economic model of legal discovery. The Journal of Legal Studies, 23(S1), 435-463. https://www.jstor.org/stable/724329
Cunha, A. D. S., Klin, I. D. V., & Pessoa, O. A. G. (2011). Custo e tempo do processo de execução fiscal promovido pela Procuradoria Geral da Fazenda Nacional. Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada.
Da Ros, L. (2015). O custo da Justiça no Brasil: uma análise comparativa exploratória. Observatório de Elites Políticas e Sociais do Brasil, 2(9), 1-15. http://observatory-elites.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/newsletter-Observatorio-v.-2-n.-9.pdf
Da Ros, L., & Taylor, M. M. (2019). Juízes eficientes, judiciário ineficiente no Brasil pós-1988. Revista Brasileira de Informação Bibliográfica em Ciências Sociais, 89(3), 1-31. https://doi.org/1017666/bib8903/2019
Fortes, P. R. B. (2015) How legal indicators influence a justice system and judicial behavior: the Brazilian National Council of Justice and ‘justice in numbers’. The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 47(1), 39-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2014.994356
Fundação Getulio Vargas (2017). Relatório com os dados da pesquisa Índice de Confiança na Justiça (ICJ Brasil) referente ao 1º semestre de 2017. https://hdl.handle.net/10438/19034
Galanter, M. (1974). Why the haves come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9(1), 95-160. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053023
Gico, I. T., Jr. (2014). A tragédia do Judiciário. Revista de Direito Administrativo, 267, 163-198. https://doi.org/10.12660/rda.v267.2014.46462
Gomes, A. O., Alves, S. T., & Silva, J. T. (2018). Effects of investment in information and communication technologies on productivity of courts in Brazil. Government Information Quarterly, 35(3), 480-490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.06.002
Grajzl, P., & Silwal, S. (2020). Multi-court judging and judicial productivity in a careerjudiciary: evidence from Nepal. International Review of Law and Economics, 61, 105888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2020.105888
Lima, M. (2016). O uso da entrevista na pesquisa empírica. In A. Abdal, M. C. V. Oliveira, D. R. Ghezzi, & J. Santos Junior (Orgs.), Métodos de pesquisa em Ciências Sociais: bloco qualitativo (pp. 24-41). Sesc/Cebrap.
Mello, P. P. C., & Barroso, L. R. (2016). Trabalhando com uma nova lógica: a ascensão dos precedentes no direito brasileiro. Revista da AGU, 15(3), 9-52. https://seer.agu.gov.br/index.php/AGU/article/view/854
Mora-Sanguinetti, J. S., & Garoupa, N. (2015). Do lawyers induce litigation? Evidence from Spain, 2001-2010. International Review of Law and Economics, 44, 29-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2015.06.003
North, D. C. (2018). Institutional change: a framework of analysis. Routledge.
Ordem dos Advogado do Brasil. (2022). Quadro da Advocacia regulares e recadastrados. https://www.oab.org.br/institucionalconselhofederal/quadroadvogados
Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. MIT press.
Posner, R. A. (1993). What do judges and justices maximize? (The same thing everybody else does). Supreme Court Economic Review, 3, 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1086/scer.3.1147064
Ribeiro, M. C. P., & Rudiniki, R., Neto (2016). Uma análise da eficiência do poder judiciário com base no pensamento de Douglas North. Revista Quaestio Iuris, 9(4), 2025-2040. https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2016.22692
Roque, A. V. (2016). A luta contra o tempo nos processos judiciais: um problema ainda à busca de uma solução. Revista Eletrônica de Direito Processual, 7(7), 237-263. https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/redp/article/view/21125
Shavell, S. (1982). Suit, settlement, and trial: a theoretical analysis under alternative methods for the allocation of legal costs. The Journal of Legal Studies, 11(1), 55-81. https://doi.org/10.1086/467692
Spier, K. E. (2007). Litigation. In A. M. Polinsky, & S. Shavell (Eds.), Handbook of Law and Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 259-342). North Holland.
The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice. (2020). European Judicial Systems–2020 Evaluation Cycle (2018 Data): efficiency and quality of Justice. Council of Europe.
Thiry-Cherques, H. R. (2009). Saturação em pesquisa qualitativa: estimativa empírica de dimensionamento. Revista PMKT, 3(2), 20-27. https://revistapmkt.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/SATURACAO_EM_PESQUISA_QUALITATIVA_ESTIMATIVA_EMPIRICA_DE_DIMENSIONAMENTO.pdf