TJ-SP and OAB engage in dispute over expanding judicial fee – 06/11/2023 – Power

A bill presented by the TJ-SP (São Paulo Court of Justice) to increase court fees has faced resistance from lawyers’ associations in the state.

Fees are charged from those who file a lawsuit in court. The amounts are usually paid by lawyers and then returned by the client, who can ask the judge for exemption due to lack of resources.

The amounts currently practiced in the state are provided for in a 2003 law, and collection occurs at different stages of the judicial process. According to the proposal presented in October 2021, the initial fee would increase from 1% of the claim amount to 1.5%, that is, an increase of 50%. Other costs would also be high.

The TJ-SP states that the increase in fees is necessary to make the value more “consistent with the cost of the public service provided”. In 2022, the court collected around BRL 1.5 billion from procedural fees in the state, almost 10% of the current budget of BRL 15 billion.

If it is approved by Alesp (Legislative Assembly of São Paulo), the forecast is for an increase of R$ 400 million in the collection, which, according to the TJ, would be used to improve the structure of the buildings of the forums, systems and computer equipment, install new branches and hire interns.

Another expected effect is the reduction of processes.

On Tuesday (6), the São Paulo section of the OAB (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil) filled the gallery of the Assembly to protest against the vote on the urgent request for approval of the text, which would take the project to the plenary without going through other House committees separately.

Currently, the proposal is analyzed by the Finance Committee.

Voting even started, with 26 votes to 4 for approval, but the quorum of 48 deputies was not reached. In a cheering atmosphere, lawyers celebrated the postponement of the analysis. It is expected to resume this week.

The president of the OAB-SP, Patrícia Vanzolini, stated that the postponement of the vote was a first victory. “We recognize as fundamental, above all, the broad debate on the text that directly affects society and São Paulo law”, she said.

In a joint note, the OAB-SP and other entities, such as the AASP (Association of Lawyers of São Paulo), IASP (Institute of Lawyers of São Paulo) and IAB Nacional (Institute of Brazilian Lawyers), dispute the justification of the court and affirm that there is a lack of studies to demonstrate the need to increase rates.

Due to the volume of lawsuits in the state, the group claims that the court already collects the most with procedural costs. Raising rates would serve, they say, to cover general expenses that must be paid for through tax collection.

In justifying the project, the court cites a survey by the CNJ (National Council of Justice) to demonstrate that São Paulo has one of the lowest initial fees charged in the country.

In a lawsuit worth BRL 100,000, for example, the initial cost of the lawsuit in the São Paulo court, of BRL 1,000, is second only to that charged by the courts of the Federal District, BRL 599.25, and of Alagoas, BRL 849 .78.

According to the court, the low cost encourages consumers from other states to sue the São Paulo Justice against companies headquartered in São Paulo, leading to an accumulation of lawsuits.

The vice-president of the OAB-SP, Leonardo Sica, says that it is fallacious to mention the data of the initial fees in isolation, without considering other charges made by the court.

A study carried out by the sectional’s jurimetrics commission states that it is necessary to observe the purchasing power of the parties involved in the action, in addition to the total expenditure of the court and other elements, to say whether the charge is compatible.

For lawyer Henrique Ávila, a former CNJ counselor and one of the coordinators of the group that authored the Bill of Costs bill pending in the National Congress, the project is necessary.

“We need to rationalize the current model, impacting less the population and increasingly directing costs to those who really use the system and file a lawsuit, for example”, he says.

The management of Tarcísio de Freitas (Republicans) avoids taking a position in the dispute. The Secretary of Government of São Paulo, Gilberto Kassab (PSD), said that the management shares the concern with adequate funding of the Judiciary and its necessary appreciation, but understands that the economic moment requires caution.

“The government recommended to leaders [do governo na Alesp] that they carefully examine the issue, assessing the matter with the objective of maintaining the balance between the needs of the Judiciary and the current financial capacity of São Paulo”, he said.

Vice-president of Alesp and president of the Finance Commission, deputy Gilmaci Santos (Republicans) says that each deputy has a personal position in relation to the text, denying that this is a dispute between base and opposition.

He assesses that both sides of the dispute will need to give in a little to reach a common denominator that will lead to approval in the House.

Alex Madureira (PL), rapporteur for the project at the Finance Commission, agrees with the court’s statement that there is room for some readjustment in rates.

Opposition deputies to the government have positioned themselves against the text because they understand that it harms access to Justice, an argument also used by law organizations and rejected by the TJ-SP.

In May, state deputy Carlos Giannazi (PSOL) held a public hearing in which arguments against the project were exposed. Deputies are negotiating another open meeting for debate in the coming weeks, a demand from legal entities.

For Giannazi, it is the role of the Government of São Paulo to meet the needs of the court, avoiding the increase in fees. In a speech on the tribune during the attempt to approve the urgent procedure on Tuesday, he stated that Tarcísio “prefers to throw these costs for the population to pay”.

The deputy says that the increase would penalize Justice servants and make it difficult for the poorest population to access, but recognizes that the court gave in on some points, such as changing the cost of diligences by Justice officials.

The TJ-SP, in turn, states that the project “does not interfere in any way with the benefit of free legal proceedings”, which can be requested by low-income people to avoid paying fees.