CPC 2015: Principles and Innovations in Civil Procedure

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

Brazil’s 2015 Code of Civil Procedure brought structural changes to civil litigation, including new principles such as cooperation and procedural good faith, along with a system of binding precedents.

Fundamental Principles of the CPC/2015

The CPC/2015 (Law 13.105/2015), Brazil’s Code of Civil Procedure, opened a new chapter in Brazilian civil litigation by expressly adopting principles that had previously existed only in legal scholarship and case law. These principles guide how all procedural rules are interpreted and applied.

The Principle of Procedural Cooperation

Article 6o of the CPC/2015 requires everyone involved in a lawsuit to cooperate with one another so that a fair and effective decision on the merits is reached within a reasonable time. In other words, judges, lawyers, members of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, and the parties themselves all share responsibility for keeping the case moving properly.

In practice, cooperation shows up in several duties: the duty of clarification (the judge must ask for clarification before deciding that a claim is defective), the duty of consultation (the parties must be heard before a decision on issues that have not been debated), and the duty of prevention (the court must alert the parties to procedural defects that can be cured).

Objective Procedural Good Faith

Article 5º provides that anyone taking part in a lawsuit must act in good faith. Unlike subjective good faith, which turns on a person’s intentions, objective good faith requires fair and honest conduct regardless of what the person intended.

This principle prohibits behavior such as venire contra factum proprium (contradicting one’s own prior conduct), supressio (loss of a procedural right through prolonged inaction), and abuse of procedural rights. Violations can result in fines and even liability for procedural damages.

Reasonable Duration of Proceedings

Article 4º reinforces the constitutional right to a reasonable duration of proceedings, providing that the parties are entitled to a complete resolution of the merits within a reasonable time, including the stage in which the judgment is actually enforced. This principle works hand in hand with the appeals and procedures set out in the Code.

Key Innovations Compared With the 1973 Code

The CPC/2015 introduced a number of changes from the previous code. Among the most significant are the mandatory conciliation or mediation hearing at the start of the case (Article 334), the procedure for disregarding the corporate entity (piercing the corporate veil) with prior opportunity to respond (Articles 133 to 137), and the counting of deadlines in business days only (Article 219).

Article 6o of the CPC/2015 requires everyone involved in a lawsuit to cooperate with one another so that a fair and effective decision on the merits is reached within a reasonable time.

Another important innovation was the ban on so-called surprise decisions. Article 10 provides that a judge may not rule on a ground the parties have had no chance to address, even if it is a matter the court may raise on its own motion. This rule strengthens the right to a meaningful hearing and ensures that the parties play a larger part in shaping the decision.

The CPC/2015 is not merely a legislative update. It is a true paradigm shift in how Brazilian civil litigation is conducted, placing cooperation and good faith at the center of judicial activity.

Provisional relief was also reworked. The Code unified the treatment of urgent relief (both advance relief and precautionary relief) and created provisional relief based on evidence (tutela de evidência), which may be granted without any showing of risk of harm when the right being asserted is clearly demonstrable. This streamlining made it easier for litigants to obtain protective measures while a case is pending.

The System of Binding Precedents

One of the most profound changes in the CPC/2015 was the creation of a system of precedents with binding force. Article 927 provides that judges and courts must follow the decisions of the STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) in abstract constitutional review, binding precedent statements (súmulas vinculantes), appellate rulings in repetitive appeals and in the procedure for assuming jurisdiction (incidente de assunção de competência), among others.

This system aims to provide greater predictability, legal certainty, and equal treatment in judicial decisions. When a higher court settles its position on a legal question, trial judges and regional courts must follow that guidance, unless the precedent can be distinguished (distinguishing) or overruled (overruling).

The adoption of binding precedents brought Brazil’s procedural system closer to certain features of the common law, though without abandoning its civil law tradition. For lawyers and litigants, this means greater predictability about how lawsuits will turn out and fewer instances of so-called lottery-style case law.

Practical Implications for Lawyers and Litigants

The CPC/2015 had concrete consequences for day-to-day litigation. Lawyers had to adapt their strategies to the new system of precedents, grounding their filings more heavily in the settled case law of the higher courts.

For litigants, the changes meant gains in transparency and predictability. The mandatory conciliation hearing, for example, opened the door to negotiated solutions that avoid prolonged litigation. The procedural agreement (Article 190) allows the parties to tailor the procedure to the particulars of each case.

The digitization of court proceedings, although not an invention of the CPC/2015, was given a boost by the new code. Article 193 provides that procedural acts may be carried out electronically, and Article 246 recognizes electronic service of process as a valid method. These provisions sped up the rollout of electronic case filing throughout the Brazilian judicial system.

Frequently Asked Questions

What changed about procedural deadlines under the CPC/2015?

The main change was counting deadlines in business days only, under Article 219. Under the 1973 Code, deadlines were counted in calendar days. This change benefited lawyers and parties by giving them more actual time to take procedural steps, especially for short deadlines such as the deadline to file an answer.

What is the mandatory conciliation hearing under Article 334?

Article 334 of the CPC/2015 provides that once the initial petition is accepted, the judge must schedule a conciliation or mediation hearing before the defendant is served to file an answer. The hearing is skipped only if both parties state that they have no interest in a negotiated settlement, or if the right at issue cannot be resolved by agreement between the parties.

Are STJ precedents binding on trial judges?

Yes. Under Article 927 of the CPC/2015, rulings issued by the STJ (Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice) in repetitive special appeals and in procedures for assuming jurisdiction must be followed by the other courts and judges. Unjustified failure to follow them may give rise to a petition (reclamação) to the court that established the precedent.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.