THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SENTENCES IN SPECIAL COURTS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON SPEED AND PROCEDURAL BOTTLENECKS IN THE STATE OF PERNAMBUCO

Abstract

The enactment of the 1988 Federal Constitution represented a milestone in the reconfiguration of the Brazilian justice system, enshrining the principle of broad access to justice as a fundamental right (BRASIL, 1988, art. 5, XXXV). In this context, institutional proposals emerged aimed at expanding access to the Judiciary, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status, can have their rights recognized and effectively protected.

The creation of the Small Claims Courts (Civil and Criminal), through Law No. 9,099/1995, constituted a significant innovation in the organization of the Judiciary. Based on the principles of orality, informality, simplicity, procedural economy, and speed, these Courts were conceived as an alternative to traditional justice, aiming to resolve less complex cases in a more agile and accessible manner (DINAMARCO, 2001).

After nearly three decades of implementation, the Special Courts face challenges that undermine their institutional identity. The increasing judicialization of everyday disputes, the significant increase in demand, and the scarcity of human and material resources have contributed to the lengthening of procedural deadlines and the worsening of congestion rates (CNJ, 2023). Consequently, there is a convergence between the performance indicators of the Special Courts and those of the ordinary courts, raising questions about their effectiveness and ability to fulfill the distinctive role for which they were created.

Given this issue, this study aims to analyze the effectiveness of judgments handed down by the Special Courts in the state of Pernambuco, with special attention to procedural speed and administrative efficiency, based on a comparison with data from the state's Ordinary Courts. The choice of the state of Pernambuco is justified by the availability of consistent statistical data and the importance of understanding regional particularities in the application of Law No. 9.099/1995.

The importance of this work lies in the need to critically evaluate the current functioning of the Special Courts, providing empirical support for the formulation of proposals for institutional improvement. By combining official statistical data—especially those published in the "Justice in Numbers" report by the National Council of Justice (CNJ)—with specialized legal literature, the aim is to develop an integrated analysis that contributes to the debate on the future of low-complexity justice in Brazil.

Thus, this dissertation is structured into five chapters, in addition to this introduction, comprising: the theoretical framework, the research methodology, the empirical analysis of the data, and, finally, the concluding remarks, which present the conclusions and suggestions for improving the Special Courts.

1.1. OBJECTIVES

Clearly defining the objectives of this research is essential to delimit its analytical scope and guide the methodological approach. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Small Claims Courts in the state of Pernambuco, this chapter presents, in detail, the general objective and the specific objectives that support the empirical research.

The research is based on the recognition that the Small Claims Courts were conceived as instruments for achieving access to justice, primarily through speed, simplicity, and informality of proceedings. However, the increase in judicial demand and the institutional overload observed in recent years raise doubts about the ability of these bodies to maintain their original purpose. Therefore, it is essential to understand, based on empirical data, whether these principles continue to be effectively applied and with what practical results.

Furthermore, the comparison between the performance indicators of the Small Claims Courts and the state's Common Courts allows us to assess whether, in practice, the distinction between the two models persists, especially regarding average processing time, congestion rate, and the rate of response to demand. Based on this analysis, it will be possible to identify not only the degree of efficiency of the Courts, but also the structural obstacles that compromise their functioning and the possible paths for their improvement.

1.1.1. General Objective

To analyze the effectiveness of decisions issued by the Small Claims Courts of the State of Pernambuco from 2021 to 2023, based on empirical indicators of judicial performance—such as average processing time, congestion rate, demand response rate, and the ratio of new cases to dismissed cases—comparing them with the same indicators verified in the state's Common Courts.

1.1.2. Specific Objectives

To achieve the general objective, the research is divided into the following specific objectives:

- To collect and systematize statistical data on the average processing time of cases in the Small Claims Courts and the Common Courts in the State of Pernambuco, based on the CNJ's "Justice in Numbers" reports, from 2021 to 2023.

- To identify the main structural and administrative bottlenecks that negatively impact the functioning of the Small Claims Courts, based on specialized literature and analysis of trends observed in the data.

- To assess the Small Claims Courts' adherence to the guiding principles of Law No. 9.099/1995, especially speed, simplicity, and informality, verifying whether these principles are still concretely reflected in procedural practices and statistical results.

- To identify, based on empirical data and legal doctrine, possible causes of the delays and the lack of connection with the Common Courts.

1.2 JUSTIFICATION AND RELEVANCE

This research is justified by the need to critically evaluate the current state of operation of Special Courts in Brazil, particularly in the State of Pernambuco, in light of the principles that guided their creation. Nearly three decades after the enactment of Law No. 9,099/1995, several studies, as well as institutional reports, have pointed to signs of structural exhaustion of this model, marked by the backlog of cases, limited human and material resources, and the worrying similarity between the indicators of Special Courts and those of the Regular Courts (SANTOS, 2019; CNJ, 2023).

Established as instruments for expanding access to justice, based on the principles of orality, simplicity, informality, procedural economy, and speed, Special Courts were conceived as a response to the slowness and excessive complexity of the ordinary procedure. This proposal for proximity justice directly aligns with the "third wave of renewal" in access to justice, as formulated by Mauro Cappelletti and Bryant Garth (1988), by prioritizing the effectiveness of judicial protection in contexts of social and economic inequality.

However, as Dinamarco (2001) and Marinoni (2006) warn, the success of this proposal is conditional on its ongoing institutional improvement, otherwise it will become yet another overburdened and inefficient court. The significant growth in litigation, without proper monitoring by judicial management policies, compromises the performance of the Courts and threatens the fulfillment of the fundamental right to a reasonable duration of proceedings, enshrined in Article 5, Section LXXVIII, of the Federal Constitution.

The choice of the state of Pernambuco as the territorial focus for this research is justified, firstly, by the widespread availability of updated official statistical data, published by the National Council of Justice (2023) through the Justice in Numbers reports; and, secondly, by the regional relevance of Special Courts as a primary instance for resolving mass disputes, which enhances the institutional impact of the research.

The scientific relevance of this study lies in the possibility of offering an empirical and comparative analysis based on objective performance indicators, such as average processing time, congestion rate, and demand response rate. These indicators have been widely used by international organizations such as CEPEJ (2018) and the World Bank (2020) as parameters for measuring judicial efficiency. In Brazil, these indicators have become central to the new logic of judicial management guided by productivity and institutional accountability (SADEK; CAVALCANTI, 2003; LUZ; GUARIDO FILHO; SOUSA, 2021).

By integrating official statistical data with specialized legal literature, this work seeks to produce applied knowledge that can support more accurate diagnoses and concrete proposals for institutional improvement, contributing to the strengthening of less complex justice in Brazil.

From a theoretical perspective, the research also engages with critical approaches to judicial effectiveness, such as those of Boaventura de Sousa Santos (1995), who problematizes the gap between formal legality and the substantive realization of rights, and Owen Fiss (1984), who warns of the risks of a justice system excessively focused on efficiency to the detriment of the substance of decisions. The articulation between these perspectives allows us to go beyond quantitative analysis, incorporating a reflection on legitimacy, equity, and the perception of justice by system users.

Finally, this dissertation aims to contribute to the contemporary debate on the role of justice as an instrument of inclusion and social transformation. In line with the principles of the Democratic Rule of Law, the effectiveness of justice is not limited to its ability to issue decisions, but depends on its responsiveness to the demands of society, especially those of the most vulnerable groups who rely on Special Courts as their primary means of accessing legal protection.

1.3 STUDY DELIMITATION

This research focuses on analyzing the effectiveness of sentences handed down by the Special Courts of the State of Pernambuco between 2021 and 2023. This timeframe is justified by the availability of consolidated data in the Justice in Numbers reports, published annually by the National Council of Justice (CNJ), whose methodological standardization allows for comparisons between segments and states.

The study is limited to the Special Civil Courts and comparisons with the state's Common Courts, thus excluding the analysis of Criminal Courts and other branches of the Judiciary, such as the Federal or Labor Courts. This delimitation aims to maintain the homogeneity of the empirical basis and ensure consistency between the data and the research objectives.

Furthermore, the approach adopted is eminently quantitative and documentary, relying exclusively on secondary data extracted from official sources—especially CNJ reports. Interviews, on-site observations, or qualitative perceptions of legal users and practitioners were not included. While such elements are relevant for a more holistic analysis of effectiveness, they fall outside the methodological scope of this study and are suggested for future research.

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the data used reflect information available in the CNJ's statistical systems and data provided by the Court of Justice of the State of Pernambuco (TJPE), and are subject to the limitations inherent in the collection, classification, and consolidation of administrative data. These limitations do not compromise the objectives of the study, but they do require caution regarding the generalization of the results to other regional contexts or to different segments of the Judiciary.

1.4    DISSERTATION STRUCTURE

This dissertation is structured into five chapters, in addition to this introduction, to ensure a logical and coherent connection between the theoretical foundations, research methodology, empirical analysis, and conclusions of the study.

Chapter 2, entitled "Theoretical Framework," presents the conceptual foundations that underlie the research, addressing topics such as access to justice, the structuring principles of Special Courts, the legislative evolution of Law No. 9,099/1995, and the concepts of efficiency and effectiveness within procedural law. The structural and procedural differences between Special Courts and the state's Common Courts are also analyzed, based on legal literature and institutional parameters.

Chapter 3, dedicated to "Research Methodology,"

It describes the methodological design adopted, the nature of the approach, the data sources, the analytical criteria, and the limitations of the study. The decision to use documentary and quantitative research is explained, focusing on the statistical analysis of data extracted from the annual Justice in Numbers reports of the National Council of Justice (CNJ), covering the period 2021 to 2023.

Chapter 4, entitled "Empirical Analysis of the Data," presents the results obtained from the systematization of performance indicators for the Small Claims Courts and the Common Courts in the state of Pernambuco. The average processing time, the congestion rate, the demand response rate, and the ratio of new cases to discharged cases are examined, with the aim of identifying trends, bottlenecks, and possible asymmetries between the two segments of the state judiciary.

Chapter 5, "Final Considerations," summarizes the study's conclusions in light of the proposed objectives, discussing the findings in light of the specialized literature and the empirical data analyzed. Suggestions for institutional improvements to the Special Courts are also presented, and directions for future research are indicated, particularly regarding the incorporation of broader qualitative and comparative dimensions.

This structure aims to ensure clarity of exposition, consistency of argument, and integration between theory and practice, essential characteristics for developing a critical and informed analysis of the effectiveness of low-complexity justice in Brazil.