BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: João Areosa, Guilherme Peres de Oliveira and Raphael Rangel, Areosa Advogados
mental protection and cultural heritage, necessitated the implementation of robust collective enforcement mechanisms. Finally, the recognition that certain inter- ests (such as environmental quality and public health) are inherently collective and indivisible necessitates procedural frameworks that differ from traditional bilateral litigation. 1.2 Basis for the Legislative Regime, Including Analogous International Laws Comparative Law Influences The Brazilian collective redress system draws from a variety of international models, adapted to suit Bra- zil’s civil law tradition and constitutional framework. The US class action system, particularly Federal Rule 23, provided the foundation for representative litiga- tion and the aggregation of claims. However, Brazilian legislators have adapted these mechanisms, resulting in significant structural and philosophical differences. Fundamental Differences From the US System In contrast to US class actions, Brazilian collective actions do not necessitate class certification. There is no preliminary stage in which courts determine whether an action may proceed collectively based on number of claims, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. Instead, the focus is on the legitimacy of the plaintiff entity (is this organisa- tion authorised by law to file collective actions?) and the nature of the rights at stake (are these truly col- lective rights?). This reflects a fundamentally different approach: the US system focuses on representative- ness, while Brazil focuses on institutional legitimacy. The Brazilian system operates primarily on an opt- out basis for diffuse and collective rights, automati- cally including all affected parties. However, for indi- vidual homogeneous rights, the system establishes an asymmetric res judicata regime where favourable judgments benefit all absent class members, but unfavourable judgments do not prejudice individuals’ rights to file separate actions. This “secondary” res judicata (secundum eventum litis) does not have a direct parallel in US law. Standing rules also differ dramatically. In the USA, class representatives are typically members of the affected class. In Brazil, entities such as the Public
Prosecutor, Public Defender, government agencies and qualified associations bring actions on behalf of affected groups without being members themselves. Individual citizens, even if directly harmed, generally cannot file collective actions individually. European and Civil Law Influences Brazilian law draws inspiration from European civil law tradition, particularly regarding the role of the Public Prosecutor ( Ministério Público ) as a guardian of col- lective interests. This institution, with its foundation in French and Portuguese legal traditions, has con- stitutional independence and a mandate to protect social and individual interests that are unavailable. The robust role of public entities in bringing collec- tive actions aligns more closely with civil law tradi- tions than with the adversarial system characteristic of common law. The inquisitorial aspects of Brazilian procedure, in which judges actively manage cases and may order evidence production sua sponte, also reflect civil law influences. This stands in contrast to the more party- driven discovery seen in common law jurisdictions. Distinctive Brazilian Features Several features distinguish the Brazilian system from both US and European models. The tripartite classifi- cation of collective rights (diffuse, collective, individ- ual homogeneous) is unique to Brazil and provides a sophisticated framework for analysing different types of collective litigation. The broad legitimacy for pub- lic entities to bring collective actions, combined with the mandatory participation of the Public Prosecutor in actions brought by private entities, creates strong public oversight. The absence of contingency fee restrictions, com- bined with the exemption of public entities and quali- fied associations from court costs, creates a different litigation financing landscape than in many other juris- dictions. The “fluid recovery” mechanism, in which unclaimed damages fund projects benefiting affected communities, addresses distribution problems differ- ently than cy-près settlements in the USA.
31 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook