BRAZIL Law and Practice Contributed by: João Areosa, Guilherme Peres de Oliveira and Raphael Rangel, Areosa Advogados
ties and attorneys involved; court workload and avail- able resources; party co-operation versus obstruction; and whether interim appeals are filed. Appellate Level • Court of Justice/Federal Regional Court: additional 2 to 4 years for appeal review. • Superior Court of Justice (STJ): additional 1 to 3 years if special appeal is filed. • Federal Supreme Court (STF): additional 1 to 4 years if extraordinary appeal is filed. Total duration from initial filing to final, unappeal- able judgment commonly ranges from 5 to 15 years, though some cases resolve faster through settlement or take longer if procedural complications arise. 3.8 Mechanisms for Changes to Length/ Timetable/Disposal of Proceedings Priority Processing Certain cases receive statutory priority treatment: • Cases involving elderly persons (over 60 years old) receive priority at all stages. • Cases involving persons with serious illnesses receive priority. • Cases involving persons with disabilities receive priority. • Cases of special constitutional or social impor- tance may receive priority at judicial discretion. These priorities apply to scheduling hearings, issu- ing decisions and processing appeals. However, enforcement is inconsistent, and priority cases still face delays, though theoretically shorter than non- priority cases. Summary Judgment Courts may grant summary judgment ( julgamento antecipado ) when there are no genuine disputes of material fact requiring evidence; the legal issue is well established by precedent or clearly determined by law; the evidence is entirely documentary and con- clusive; or the parties agree to forgo evidence and submit the case for immediate decision. However, summary judgment is relatively uncommon in collective actions given their factual complexity
and high stakes. Defendants often challenge factual assertions and request evidence production, prevent-
ing summary disposition. 3.9 Funding and Costs
Under Article 18 of the LACP and Article 87 of the CDC, all legitimate entities – including the Public Pros- ecutor’s Office, Public Defender’s Office, government bodies and duly qualified associations – are exempt from the advance payment of court fees, expert fees and other procedural expenses when filing collective actions. Liability for Costs Such entities are only liable for costs and attorneys’ fees if they act in bad faith. If the claim is dismissed for lack of evidence or merit without bad faith, no costs are owed. Scope of the Rule This exemption applies specifically to collective pro- ceedings governed by the LACP or CDC. If an asso- ciation acts as a private litigant in an ordinary civil case, general cost rules will apply. Policy Rationale (Corrected Summary) Brazilian collective litigation law eliminates financial obstacles by waiving advance costs and limiting liabil- ity to cases of bad faith, making collective actions effectively cost-free for good-faith plaintiffs and there- by encouraging public-interest litigation. Brazilian civil procedure does not have discovery in the common law sense. There is no general duty to disclose documents or information, no interrogatories, and no depositions as in US procedure. Parties con- trol what evidence they present, and there is no obli- gation to produce evidence harmful to their positions. Document Production Requests Courts may order production of specific documents upon party request or at the court’s initiative. Requirements for Document Production The requesting party must clearly specify the docu- ments or categories of documents sought, not merely 3.10 Disclosure and Privilege No General Discovery System
37 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook