The benefit of free justice and the need or not to prove insufficient resources




Free justice; Insufficiency of resources; Need for proof; Absence of legal criteria; Inequality.


The guarantee of access to justice is a fundamental right, provided for in the Federal Constitution, which established the principle of non-removal of jurisdiction, guaranteeing free access to the Judiciary, which supports the gratuitousness of justice. Law 13,105/15, when providing for Free Justice, established themes consolidated by jurisprudence and doctrine, however, it did not establish the criteria for granting it. Thus, the problem to be analyzed in this article is about the need or not to prove the insufficiency of resources and the absence of parameters in the legal system. The methodology adopted is bibliographic research, with a descriptive and deductive approach on the subject. To apply for the benefit, a declaration stating that it is low-sufficient is enough, thus demonstrating an ease. For this reason, some scholars defend that only the declaration of hyposufficiency will be granted with documents that prove their real financial situation, as the declaration has relative presumption. However, the attachment of these documents is not uniform, each magistrate has requested the attachment of documents according to what he believes to be sufficient and according to the specific case. There is, however, a minority in the jurisprudence that has judged as sufficient only the declaration of hypo-sufficiency. Note that each judge will use their own subjective and discretionary criteria, not having uniformity regarding the granting of the benefit of free justice, causing the law to be applied unequally and providing the feeling of legal uncertainty.

Author Biographies

Celso Hiroshi Iocohama, Universidade Paranaense

Graduated in Law from the Faculty of Law of Umuarama (1989), Master's in Social Relations Law from the State University of Londrina (1996), Ph.D. in Law from the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo (2001), specialization in Teaching in Higher Education from Universidade Paranaense (2003) and Ph.D. in Education from the University of São Paulo (2011). He is currently a full professor of Civil Procedural Law I, at Universidade Paranaense, Campus Sede. He has participated as responsible for the discipline of Higher Education Methodology in the Master's Program in Procedural Law and Citizenship at the Universidade Paranaense since 2002, teaching from 2008 on the discipline of Methodology of Scientific Research in Law. He teaches in the "Lato Sensu" Post-Graduation course, among others, in the subjects of General Theory of Law, Legal Hermeneutics and Methodology of Higher Education. He is Coordinator of the Master's Program in Procedural Law and Citizenship at Unipar (since 2008). He is Vice President of the Ethics Committee for Research Involving Human Beings at UNIPAR. Lawyer since 1990, he was vice president of the Brazilian Bar Association, Umuarama Subsection for three terms (1998 to 2006) and president of the same Subsection for two terms (2007-2012).

Cleverson Daniel Dutra, Universidade Estadual de Mato Grosso do Sul

Master's student in Procedural Law and Citizenship at Universidade Paranaense - UNIPAR. Postgraduate in Obligations Law from UIGRAN (1999). Graduated in Law from the University Center of Grande Dourados - UNIGRAN (1998). Lawyer and professor of the Law Course at the State University of Mato Grosso do Sul - UEMS (Dourados University Unit). He has experience in the area of Business Law and Tax Law, working mainly in consultancy and research in these areas.


Alexy, R. (2008). Teoria dos direitos fundamentais. Tradução de Virgílio Afonso da Silva. Malheiros.

Aristóteles. (1996) Livro V da Ética a Nicômaco. Nova Cultura.

Bastos, C. L & Keller, V. (1995). Aprendendo a aprender. Vozes.

Brasil (2019). Constituição. Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988. In: Vade Mecum. Saraiva.

Brasil. (1950). Lei nº 1.060, de 5 de fevereiro de 1950. Estabelece normas para a concessão de assistência judiciária aos necessitados. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília.

Brasil. (2015) Lei nº 13.105, de 16 de março de 2015. Código de Processo Civil. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília.

Bueno, C. S. (2014). Curso Sistematizado de direito processual civil: teoria geral do direito processual civil. (8a ed.), Saraiva, v.8.

CappellettI, M. & Garth, B. (1998). Acesso à Justiça. Palloti.

Minas Gerais. (2018). Apelação Cível no 00115502020188130520. Relator: Evangelina Castilho Duarte. DJe: 19/012/2018. JusBrasil.

Minas Gerais. (2020). Apelação Cível: 10433130141255001 MG. Relator: José Flávio de Almeida. DJe: 27/05/2020. JusBrasil.

Montenegro Filho, M. (2017). Novo Código de Processo Civil Comentado. (3a ed.), Atlas.

Moreira, J. C. B. (1977). Temas de Direito Processual. (2a ed.), Saraiva.

Nery Júnior, N. (1997). Princípios do Processo Civil na Constituição Federal. (4a ed.), RT.

Paraná. (2020). Agravo de Instrumento n° 0059020-37.2019.8.16.0000, 17a Câmara Cível. Relator: Fabian Schweitzer. DJe: 07/04/2020. JusBrasil.

Paraná. (2017). Agravo de Instrumento no 15888538. Relator: Juiz Carlos Henrique Licheski Klein. DJe: 22/08/2017. JusBrasil.

Rawls, J. (2000). Uma Teoria da Justiça. (2a ed.), Martins Fontes.

Rio de Janeiro. (2019). Recurso Ordinário trabalhista no 00000183220195200015. Relator: Rildo Albuquerque Mousinho de Brito, DJe: 25/09/2019. JusBrasil.

Rio de Janeiro. (2019). Recurso Ordinário no 01010939420185010010. Relator: Marcelo Augusto Souto de Oliveira. DJe: 6/10/2019. JusBrasil.

Santa Catarina. (2016). Agravo de Instrumento n ° 0032226-59.2016.8.24.0000, 2 ª Câmara de Direito Comercial. Relator. Des. Robson Luz Va. DJe 13/9/2016. JusBrasil.

São Paulo. (2018). Agravo de instrumento n° 20190764920188260000, 35 ª Câmara de Direito Privado. Relator: Morais Pucci. DJe 13/03/2018. JusBrasil.

Sergipe. (2020). Agravo de Instrumento no 00000183220195200015. Relator: Rita de Cassia Pinheiro de Oliveira. DJe: 17/07/2020. JusBrasil.

Souza, W. A. (2011). Acesso à justiça. Dois de Julho.

Theodoro júnior, H. (2019). Curso de Direito Processual Civil: teoria geral do direito processual civil processo de conhecimento e procedimento comum. (60a ed.), Forense.



How to Cite

IOCOHAMA, C. H. .; DUTRA, C. D.; MANDUCA, K. dos S. . The benefit of free justice and the need or not to prove insufficient resources. Research, Society and Development, [S. l.], v. 10, n. 13, p. e224101321183, 2021. DOI: 10.33448/rsd-v10i13.21183. Disponível em: Acesso em: 8 dec. 2021.



Human and Social Sciences