The Brazilian appeals system has always been the target of criticism, whether for its complexity or for the excessive volume of cases reaching the higher courts. The 2015 Code of Civil Procedure sought to address this problem through rationalization mechanisms, such as strengthening precedents, valuing decisions on the merits, and creating more rigorous filters for the admissibility of appeals. Even so, the debate remains relevant: does the future of appeals in civil procedure point towards simplification of the system or towards a progressive restriction of access to justice?

The answer is not trivial. The contemporary movement of civil procedure reveals a constant tension between two equally relevant values: on the one hand, the efficiency and reasonable duration of the process; on the other, the parties' right to review judicial decisions. Recent developments indicate that the system has prioritized the stabilization of decisions and the reduction of repetitive litigation, but not without costs to the exercise of the right to appeal.

The rationalization logic of the appeals system in the 2015 CPC

The 2015 Code of Civil Procedure introduced an important structural change by shifting the focus of the process to the effective resolution of the merits. Article 4 enshrines the right to a complete resolution on the merits within a reasonable time, while Article 6 establishes the principle of cooperation. These provisions directly influence the appeals system, which ceases to be seen as a natural and automatic stage of the process and assumes a more restricted and functional character.

The creation of mechanisms such as the judgment of repetitive appeals, the incident of resolution of repetitive demands (IRDR), and the valorization of binding precedents (art. 927) demonstrates a clear intention to reduce the multiplicity of appeals on the same legal issue. The logic is simple: once a legal thesis is established, it makes no sense to allow the indefinite re-discussion of the same topic.

This rationalization, however, implies a cultural shift. The appeal ceases to be a broad instrument for review and becomes a technical means of controlling the decision, subject to more rigorous admissibility criteria.

Admissibility filters and the role of higher courts

The higher courts, especially the Superior Court of Justice and the Supreme Federal Court, have reinforced the use of procedural filters as a way to contain the volume of cases. In the case of special appeals, for example, the requirement to demonstrate a direct violation of federal law and the rigor in the analysis of formal requirements have resulted in a high rate of inadmissibility.

In the Supreme Federal Court, the general repercussion mechanism functions as an essential filter, allowing the Court to select cases with legal, economic, or social relevance. The proposal to expand similar filters in the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), through the so-called "relevance of the federal question," indicates a trend toward strengthening this model.

Although these mechanisms contribute to the system's efficiency, they also reduce the number of cases that reach a trial on the merits, which raises questions about potential restrictions on access to justice.

Simplification of appeals or compression of the right to appeal?

The discourse surrounding the simplification of the appeals system is often confused with reducing the number of admissible appeals. In theory, simplification should mean greater procedural clarity, elimination of redundancies, and streamlining of appeals processes. In practice, however, many measures have resulted in increased formal requirements and strengthened admissibility barriers.

The principle of dialectics, for example, has been applied with increasing rigor, resulting in the inadmissibility of appeals that do not specifically address the grounds for the decision. Similarly, the requirement of pre-trial questioning and the prohibition against re-examining facts and evidence (STJ Precedent 7) function as additional filters.

This scenario reveals a transformation in the role of the appeal: from a broad instrument of review to a restricted technical mechanism of legal control. The consequence is a reduction in the scope for reassessing decisions, especially in higher courts.

Binding precedents and stability of decisions

One of the pillars of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure is the emphasis on precedents. Article 927 imposes on courts the duty to observe binding decisions, such as those issued in repetitive appeals and cases with general repercussions. This model seeks to provide predictability and uniformity to the law, reducing the need for repeated appeals.

The logic of precedents profoundly alters the appeals system. If the legal issue is already defined, the appeal loses its traditional function of debate and becomes residual in nature. The focus shifts from individual review to the consolidation of legal theses.

However, the rigid application of precedents can also generate tensions, especially when there are social or economic changes that would justify a review of the jurisprudence. In this context, the challenge is to reconcile stability with the adaptability of the legal system.

Access to justice and limits of the restriction of appeals.

The right to appeal is not absolute, but it forms the core of due process and the right to a fair hearing. The Federal Constitution guarantees access to justice (Article 5, XXXV) and the right to a fair hearing and full defense (Article 5, LV), which includes the possibility of reviewing judicial decisions.

Excessive restriction of resources can compromise these rights, especially in cases where the first instance decision contains significant errors. The system needs to ensure that there is at least one effective way to review decisions.

On the other hand, the multiplicity of appeals can generate delays and legal uncertainty, equally affecting access to justice. Finding the balance between these two extremes is one of the main challenges of contemporary civil procedure.

Conclusion

The future of appeals in Brazilian civil procedure does not point to their elimination, but to their transformation. The system is moving towards a more selective model, guided by the stability of decisions and procedural efficiency.

Simplification, however, should not be confused with indiscriminate restriction. The right to appeal remains an essential element of due process, and its limitation must be carefully calibrated.

The challenge lies in building an appeals system that is both efficient and protective of individual rights, capable of reducing excessive litigation without compromising the control of judicial decisions. In this scenario, more than ever, procedural technique and a strategic understanding of the system become indispensable.

References

BRAZIL. Code of Civil Procedure. Law No. 13.105/2015.
SUPREME FEDERAL COURT. Jurisprudence on general repercussion.
Superior Court of Justice. Case law on the admissibility of appeals.
DIDIER JR., Fredie; CUNHA, Leonardo Carneiro da. Course on Civil Procedural Law.
MARINONI, Luiz Guilherme; ARENHART, Sérgio Cruz; MITIDIERO, Daniel. New Course on Civil Procedure.
THEODORO JÚNIOR, Humberto. Course on Civil Procedural Law.