Taxing Access to Justice: Legal Analysis of Judicial Fees in Brazil and the Dialectics of Legal Aid in Comparative Perspective

Authors

  • Eduardo Müller Gomes

Keywords:

Access to Justice, Comparative Law, Court Costs, European Court of Human Rights., InterAmerican Human Rights, Judicial Fee, Law and Economics, Legal Aid, Tax Law

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between the tax system, judicial financing, and the fundamental right of access to justice in Brazil, situating the analysis within the international human rights law framework established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The analysis begins with the constitutional characterization of judicial fees as a linked tax under Article 145(II) of the 1988 Federal Constitution and engages the doctrinal debate over whether the claim value, as a proxy for wealth, constitutes a constitutionally sound tax base. A law-and-economics framework situates court fees as price signals, while practical observations drawn from fifteen years in Brazilian public service illuminate the structural failures of the legal aid regime. The IACtHR's binding jurisprudence in Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 and Cantos v. Argentina, and the ECtHR's proportionality standard in Kreuz v. Poland, provide the supranational normative backdrop. A comparative study contrasts Brazilian solutions with those of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Portugal, generating critical findings on the risks of mechanically transplanting European fee models to a developing country context. The article concludes with a reform proposal grounded in economic and legal rationality: moderate court fees with mandatory annual monetary adjustment, combined with objective and constitutionally proportionate criteria for the granting of legal aid.

Downloads

How to Cite

Taxing Access to Justice: Legal Analysis of Judicial Fees in Brazil and the Dialectics of Legal Aid in Comparative Perspective. (2026). Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 26(2), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.34257/GJHSSE258526

Author Biography

Eduardo Müller Gomes

Eduardo Müller Gomes is a researcher affiliated with PUCSP. He is a Substitute Federal Judge in the 3rd Region and a Specialist in Public Law, currently pursuing a Master's degree in Procedural and Constitutional Tax Law.

References

Cappelletti, Garth (1978) Access to Justice: The Newest Wave in the Worldwide Movement to Make Rights Effective. 27, 181-292.

Marcellino Junior (2016) Análise Econômica do Acesso à Justiça.

Brazil (1988) Federal Constitution (CF/88), art. 145(II), 1988; National Tax Code (CTN), Law No. 5.172, arts. 77-79, 1966. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l5172.htm

Alexandre, Ataliba, Becker, Carrazza, Carvalho, Harada, Paulsen, Sabbag, Schoueri, Segundo

Ferreira Neto (2006) Classificação Constitucional de Tributos.

Ataliba

STF (1995) ADI No. 1378 MC, Rel. Min. Celso de Mello, 30.11.1995, D.J. 30.05.1997 (Brazil).

Sabbag, Carvalho

CNJ (2010) Relatório de Pesquisas sobre Custas Judiciais. https://www.cnj.jus.br/pesquisasjudiciarias/pesquisas-sobre-custas-judiciais

Barreto (1986) Base de Cálculo, Alíquota e Princípios Constitucionais.

Segundo

STF, Paulsen

Carvalho

Harada

STF Súmula No. 667 (Brazil).

STF, Harada

Tavares (2023) Curso de Direito Constitucional.

Brazil CF/88, art. 5, LXXIV.

Gontijo (2015) O Direito Fundamental de Acesso à Justiça.

Nery Junior, Nery (2024) Código de Processo Civil Comentado.

Brazil (2015) CPC/15, Law No. 13.105, art. 98. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/I13105.htm

Nery Junior, Nery

CNJ 8.

Brazil (2022) Senate Bill No. 2.339. https://www25.senado.leg.br/web/atividade/materias/-/materia/154415

Marcellino Junior

IACtHR (1990) Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, Series A No. 11. 28. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_11_ing.pdf

IACtHR 30.

IACtHR 31.

(1969) American Convention on Human Rights, arts. 8(1), 25.

IACtHR (2002) Cantos v. Argentina, Series C No. 97. 50-54. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_97_ing.pdf

IACtHR 54.

IACtHR 55-59.

IACtHR 60.

Brazil CF/88, arts. 5(LXXIV), 4(II).

Posner An Economic Approach to Legal Procedure and Judicial Administration. 2.

Posner (2014) Economic Analysis of Law.

Coase (1960) The Problem of Social Cost. 3, 1-44.

Calabresi (1961) Some Thoughts on Risk Distribution and the Law of Torts. 70, 499-553.

Posner 14.

14-15.

15-16.

16-17.

17.

Posner 400-02.

401-02.

417.

418-19.

437.

438.

Posner 633.

633-34.

634.

(2024) 28 U.S.C. § 1926.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims (2025) Updated Fee Schedule. https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov

U.S. Chamber of Commerce (2013) International Liability Costs. https://www.instituteforlegalreform.com

Rhode (2001) Access to Justice. 69, 1785-1819. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol69/iss5/11

1787.

Rhode (2004) Access to Justice. 3.

Hammond

Hammond 1483.

(1963) Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335.

Feldman (1985) Indigents in the Federal Courts. 54, 413-445.

(1989) Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325.

U.S. Dep't of Justice (2023) Access to Justice Spotlight: Fines & Fees. https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-03/dojaccess-to-justice-spotlight-fines-and-fees.pdf

(2003) Courts Act 2003, c. 39, § 92 (U.K.).

Eisenberg, Miller The English Versus the American Rule on Attorney Fees. 98.

Zuckerman (1999) Justice in Crisis. 3-52.

26.

(2017) R (UNISON) v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51. 68.

78.

64.

80.

(2023) Help with Fees, Statutory Instrument 2023/1024 (U.K.).

Gerichtskostengesetz (GKG), § 3 (Germany). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gkg_2004/

Zivilprozessordnung (ZPO), § 91 (Germany). https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_zpo/

ZPO §§ 114-127 (Germany).

ZPO § 115 (Germany).

ZPO § 114(1) (Germany).

ZPO § 120a (Germany).

Constituição da República Portuguesa (CRP), art. 20 (Portugal).

Miranda (1995) Comentários ao Código de Processo Civil. 1, 12.

(2008) Decreto-Lei No. 34/2008 (RCP) (Portugal). https://dre.pt

(2024) Portaria No. 372-B/2024, de 17 de Dezembro (Portugal). https://dre.pt

RCP, Tabela I-A (Portugal).

RCP, art. 6, No. 7 (Portugal).

RCP, art. 6, Nos. 8-9 (Portugal).

(2013) Lei No. 41/2013, de 26 de Junho (CPC Portugal), art. 527. https://dre.pt

CPC Portugal, art. 530.

(2004) Lei No. 34/2004, de 29 de Julho (Portugal). https://dre.pt/dre/detalhe/lei/34-2004-480688

CEPEJ (2023) Evaluation Report on European Judicial Systems-2022 Data. https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej

(1950) European Convention on Human Rights, art. 6(1).

(2001) Kreuz v. Poland, No. 28249/95. 54. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int

55.

60.

62.

(2006) Weissman & Others v. Romania, No. 63945/00. 40.

(1979) Airey v. Ireland, App. No. 6289/73. 26.

CNJ (2024) Justiça em Números 2024: Ano-Base 2023. 5. https://www.cnj.jus.br/pesquisasjudiciarias/justica-em-numeros/

CNJ 5.

Tenenblat (2011) Limitar o Acesso ao Poder Judiciário para Ampliar o Acesso à Justiça. 15(52), 22-34.

CNJ 12.

Marcellino Junior 185.

Posner 438.

Weber (2003) General Economic History. 277.

Ferraz Júnior (1981) Segurança Jurídica e Normas Gerais Tributárias. (17-18), 51-56.

54.

Brazil

Brazil (2024) Senate Bill No. 429. https://www25.senado.leg.br

Brazil (1996) Law No. 9.289, de 4 de Julho de 1996, art. 1. http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/I9289.htm

CNJ 15.

Dworkin Is Wealth a Value?.

Alexy (2002) A Theory of Constitutional Rights.

Taxing Access to Justice: Legal Analysis of Judicial Fees in Brazil and the Dialectics of Legal Aid in Comparative Perspective

Published

2026-09-17

How to Cite

Taxing Access to Justice: Legal Analysis of Judicial Fees in Brazil and the Dialectics of Legal Aid in Comparative Perspective. (2026). Global Journal of Human-Social Science, 26(2), 27-35. https://doi.org/10.34257/GJHSSE258526