TEMPO DO PROCESSO JUDICIAL NO BRASIL E EM PAÍSES EUROPEUS

Castelliano, Caio; Guimaraes, Tomas Aquino

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ARTIGO • Rev. direito GV 19 • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172202302 copiar

TEMPO DO PROCESSO JUDICIAL NO BRASIL E EM PAÍSES EUROPEUS

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Resumo

O tempo do processo judicial é um assunto relevante na agenda de pesquisadores sociais, gestores de políticas públicas, políticos, profissionais do Direito e administradores do sistema de justiça. Se o tempo de processos judiciais em países específicos deve ser considerado razoável ou não, isso permanece uma questão em aberto. Os tribunais brasileiros são percebidos como lentos. Esse estudo investiga se o atraso judicial é um problema real ou apenas uma percepção enviesada. A duração de processos cíveis no Brasil é mensurada com o uso de padrões internacionais e, então, comparada com a duração em tribunais europeus. O tempo dos processos judiciais em tribunais de primeira instância é de 600 dias, quase três vezes maior que a média na Europa (232 dias). Nos tribunais brasileiros de segunda instância, o tempo de duração (320 dias) é 50% maior que na Europa (215 dias). No entanto, o número de processos decididos nos tribunais brasileiros é maior que o número de novos casos, o que significa que o estoque de processos e o seu tempo de duração têm uma tendência de queda. Esses dados são discutidos neste artigo, e também são propostas recomendações gerenciais e uma agenda de pesquisa.

Palavras-chave
Atraso judicial; casos cíveis; estoque de processos; tempo de julgamento; índice de atendimento à demanda

CRITERIA FOR DATA SELECTION	EUROPE	BRAZIL
DOES IT INCLUDE TYPICAL CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL CASES? IN BRAZIL, CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL CASES	YES COMMERCIAL LITIGIOUS CASES” IS THE CATEGORY CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS. IT INCLUDES FAMILY LAW CASES, DISPUTES REGARDING CONTRACTS, AND COMMERCIAL LAW CASES. DIVORCES AND BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS ARE EXAMPLES OF CASES BELONGING TO THIS CATEGORY (CEPEJ, 2017COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR L‘EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE (CEPEJ). Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems. 2016-2018 Cycle. 2017. Available at: Available at: https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-the-scheme-for-evaluating-judicial-systems/1680767c02 . Accessed on: October 24, 2022. https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-t... ).	YES “OTHER THAN CRIMINAL - CIVIL AND SUCH AS FAMILY CASES, DISPUTES REGARDING CONTRACTS AND BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS ARE TYPICALLY ADDRESSED BY STATE COURTS. FOR THIS REASON, DATA INCLUDED NON-CRIMINAL CASES IN STATE COURTS, LITIGATED BOTH IN COMMON AND SPECIAL PROCEDURES, AS SPECIFIED IN TABLES 2 AND 5.
DOES IT INCLUDE LABOR-RELATED CASES, ESPECIALLY EMPLOYMENT DISMISSALS (TERMINATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AT THE INITIATIVE OF THE EMPLOYER)?	YES THE CATEGORY “OTHER THAN CRIMINAL - CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL LITIGIOUS CASES” INCLUDES EMPLOYMENT DISMISSAL CASES. OTHER LABOR- RELATED CASES OF EMPLOYERS WORKING IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR ALSO BELONG TO THIS CATEGORY, AS THEY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED ADMINISTRATIVE (DISPUTES BETWEEN CITIZENS AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES) OR CRIMINAL CASES (CEPEJ, 2017COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR L‘EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE (CEPEJ). Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems. 2016-2018 Cycle. 2017. Available at: Available at: https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-the-scheme-for-evaluating-judicial-systems/1680767c02 . Accessed on: October 24, 2022. https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-t... ).	YES BRAZIL HAS SPECIFIC COURTS FOR LABOR- RELATED CASES. FOR THIS REASON, DATA INCLUDED CASES LITIGATED IN LABOR COURTS, AS SPECIFIED IN TABLES 2 AND 5.
DOES IT INCLUDE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES (DISPUTES BETWEEN CITIZENS AND PUBLIC AUTHORITIES)?	PARTIALLY DMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES ARE, IN SOME COUNTRIES, ADDRESSED BY SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS, WHILST IN OTHER COUNTRIES, THEY ARE HANDLED BY ORDINARY CIVIL COURTS. IF COUNTRIES HAVE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS, SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCEDURES, OR ARE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES AND CIVIL LAW CASES, THESE FIGURES ARE INDICATED SEPARATELY UNDER “OTHER THAN CRIMINAL - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ASES”. WHEN THE DISTINCTION IS NOT POSSIBLE, CASES ARE RECORDED AS “OTHER THAN CRIMINAL - CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL LITIGIOUS CASES” (CEPEJ, 2017COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR L‘EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE (CEPEJ). Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems. 2016-2018 Cycle. 2017. Available at: Available at: https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-the-scheme-for-evaluating-judicial-systems/1680767c02 . Accessed on: October 24, 2022. https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-t... ).	PARTIALLY DMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES ADDRESSED BY SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS IN BRAZIL (SUCH AS FEDERAL AND MILITARY COURTS) ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS. TAX ENFORCEMENT CASES (WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FILES A NEW CASE TO COLLECT UNPAID TAXES) ARE ADDRESSED UNDER A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCEDURE AND ARE RECORDED IN A SPECIFIC CATEGORY (DIFFERENT FROM NON- CRIMINAL CASES) WHICH IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS. SOME ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CASES LITIGATED IN STATE COURTS CANNOT BE DISTINGUISHED FROM CIVIL CASES AND REMAIN IN THE DATA.
DOES IT INCLUDE ENFORCEMENT CASES RELATED TO THE ABOVE ISSUES?	YES ENFORCEMENT LITIGIOUS CASES (FOR EXAMPLE, A JUDICIAL APPEAL AGAINST DEEDS PROCESSED BY A BAILIFF) ARE INCLUDED IN THE CATEGORY “OTHER THAN CRIMINAL - CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL CASES” (CEPEJ, 2017COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR L‘EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE (CEPEJ). Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems. 2016-2018 Cycle. 2017. Available at: Available at: https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-the-scheme-for-evaluating-judicial-systems/1680767c02 . Accessed on: October 24, 2022. https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-t... ).	YES ENFORCEMENT CASES ADDRESSED BY BOTH STATE AND LABOR COURTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE DATA, AS SPECIFIED IN TABLES 2 AND 5.
DOES IT INCLUDE CRIMINAL CASES?	NO CRIMINAL CASES BELONG TO A SEPARATE CATEGORY (CEPEJ, 2017COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR L‘EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE (CEPEJ). Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems. 2016-2018 Cycle. 2017. Available at: Available at: https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-the-scheme-for-evaluating-judicial-systems/1680767c02 . Accessed on: October 24, 2022. https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-t... ) AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ANALYSIS.	NO CRIMINAL CASES ADDRESSED BY STATE COURTS BELONG TO A SEPARATE CATEGORY AND ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE DATA (THOSE CASES ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN TABLES 2 AND 5).
DOES IT INCLUDE REGISTRATION DUTIES, SUCH AS BUSINESS AND LAND REGISTERS (DUTIES PERFORMED BY SOME COURTS IN EUROPE)?	NO BUSINESS REGISTERS AND LAND REGISTERS ARE CONSIDERED NON-LITIGIOUS CASES AND ARE RECORDED IN A SEPARATE CATEGORY (CEPEJ, 2017COMMISSION EUROPEENNE POUR L‘EFFICACITE DE LA JUSTICE (CEPEJ). Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems. 2016-2018 Cycle. 2017. Available at: Available at: https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-the-scheme-for-evaluating-judicial-systems/1680767c02 . Accessed on: October 24, 2022. https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-t... ).	NO IN BRAZIL, BUSINESS REGISTRATION AND LAND REGISTRATION ARE NOT PERFORMED BY COURTS.

COURT	PROCEDURE	PHASE	NEW CASES	PENDING CASES	DECIDED CASES	DISPOSITION TIME (DAYS)	CLEARANCE RATE
STATE COURTS	COMMON	JUDGMENT	5,837,356	15,045,830	7,766,410	707	133%
	COMMON	ENFORCEMENT	1,838,812	6,161,576	1,728,814	1,301	94%
	SPECIAL	JUDGMENT	3,815,940	3,892,411	4,394,600	323	115%
	SPECIAL	ENFORCEMENT	1,173,489	1,293,854	1,170,294	404	100%
LABOR COURTS	ALL PROCEDURES	JUDGMENT	1,814,400	1,243,785	2,304,063	197	127%
LABOR COURTS	ALL PROCEDURES	ENFORCEMENT	815,616	2,416,904	924,348	954	113%
		TOTAL	15,295,613	30,054,360	18,288,529	600	120%

POSITION	COUNTRY	DISPOSITION TIME DAYS)
1	AZERBAIJAN	25
2	RUSSIAN FEDERATION	42
3	MOROCCO	86
4	LITHUANIA	88
5	LUXEMBOURG	91
6	UKRAINE	96
7	SWITZERLAND	107
8	NETHERLANDS	121
9	SLOVAKIA	130
10	AUSTRIA	133
11	ESTONIA	139
12	REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA	140
13	CZECH REPUBLIC	153
14	ROMANIA	153
15	ALBANIA	159
16	HUNGARY	159
17	NORWAY	161
18	SWEDEN	164
19	DENMARK	176
20	ARMENIA	188
21	GERMANY	196
22	NORTH MACEDONIA	223
23	POLAND	225
24	GEORGIA	242
25	LATVIA	247
26	FINLAND	252
27	MONTENEGRO	267
28	SLOVENIA	280
29	SPAIN	282
30	PORTUGAL	289
31	SERBIA	315
32	ISRAEL	333
33	FRANCE	353
34	CROATIA	364
35	MONACO	372
36	TURKEY	399
37	MALTA	432
38	ITALY	514
39	BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA	574
40	BRAZIL	600
41	GREECE	610
	EUROPEAN AVERAGE	232

POSITION	COUNTRY	CLEARANCE RATE
1	SLOVAKIA	132%
2	FINLAND	125%
3	BRAZIL	120%
4	CROATIA	118%
5	BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA	115%
6	ITALY	113%
7	PORTUGAL	112%
8	CZECH REPUBLIC	110%
9	MALTA	107%
10	SLOVENIA	106%
11	GERMANY	103%
12	SPAIN	103%
13	AUSTRIA	102%
14	BELGIUM	102%
15	NORWAY	102%
16	ROMANIA	102%
17	RUSSIAN FEDERATION	102%
18	DENMARK	101%
19	LATVIA	101%
20	NETHERLANDS	101%
21	SWITZERLAND	101%
22	LUXEMBOURG	100%
23	ALBANIA	99%
24	FRANCE	99%
25	GREECE	99%
26	MONACO	99%
27	POLAND	99%
28	SWEDEN	99%
29	AZERBAIJAN	98%
30	ESTONIA	98%
31	HUNGARY	98%
32	LITHUANIA	98%
33	MONTENEGRO	98%
34	REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA	97%
35	UKRAINE	97%
36	NORTH MACEDONIA	95%
37	ARMENIA	94%
38	SERBIA	94%
39	TURKEY	86%
40	UK-SCOTLAND	79%
41	GEORGIA	77%
42	IRELAND	59%
	EUROPEAN AVERAGE	100%

COURT	PROCEDURE	NEW CASES	PENDING CASES	RESOLVED CASES	DISPOSITION TIME (DAYS)	CLEARANCE RATE
STATE COURTS	COMMON	1,894,316	1,778,880	1,956,645	332	103%
STATE COURTS	SPECIAL	805,881	702,283	836,884	306	104%
LABOR COURTS	ALL PROCEDURES	898,104	792,223	941,356	307	105%
		3,598,301	3,273,386	3,734,885	320	104%

POSITION	COUNTRY	DISPOSITION TIME (DAYS)
1	RUSSIAN FEDERATION	31
2	UKRAINE	54
3	ARMENIA	60
4	CZECH REPUBLIC	69
5	AZERBAIJAN	72
6	ESTONIA	95
7	SLOVENIA	97
8	SWITZERLAND	97
9	REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA	100
10	SWEDEN	100
11	LITHUANIA	103
12	POLAND	105
13	TURKEY	109
14	NORTH MACEDONIA	111
15	PORTUGAL	114
16	HUNGARY	121
17	SLOVAKIA	121
18	LATVIA	124
19	ROMANIA	131
20	DENMARK	141
21	FINLAND	150
22	GEORGIA	153
23	SERBIA	180
24	SPAIN	181
25	GERMANY	245
26	BRAZIL	320
27	CROATIA	328
28	MONACO	435
29	BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA	462
30	FRANCE	487
31	LUXEMBOURG	553
32	MALTA	783
33	ITALY	993
34	GREECE	1 149
	EUROPEAN AVERAGE	215

POSITION	COUNTRY	CLEARANCE RATE
1	SLOVAKIA	125%
2	FINLAND	119%
3	CROATIA	116%
4	ITALY	111%
5	NORTH MACEDONIA	111%
6	BELGIUM	110%
7	DENMARK	109%
8	ESTONIA	106%
9	LUXEMBOURG	106%
10	MALTA	106%
11	ROMANIA	106%
12	BRAZIL	104%
13	ARMENIA	103%
14	SWEDEN	103%
15	CZECH REPUBLIC	102%
16	SWITZERLAND	102%
17	GERMANY	101%
18	LITHUANIA	101%
19	HUNGARY	100%
20	RUSSIAN FEDERATION	100%
21	SLOVENIA	100%
22	UKRAINE	100%
23	GEORGIA	99%
24	REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA	99%
25	SPAIN	98%
26	MONACO	97%
27	PORTUGAL	97%
28	LATVIA	96%
29	POLAND	96%
30	AZERBAIJAN	95%
31	BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA	95%
32	FRANCE	95%
33	SERBIA	92%
34	IRELAND	82%
35	TURKEY	77%
36	GREECE	75%
	EUROPEAN AVERAGE	101%

Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Direito de São Paulo Rua Rocha, 233, 11º andar, 01330-000 São Paulo/SP Brasil, Tel.: (55 11) 3799 2172 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistadireitogv@fgv.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Caio Castelliano. PhD in Administration from Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brazil. caio.castelliano@hotmail.com