Brazil Country Profile

Judicial System

Individual corruption

The judiciary is commonly held to be unresponsive and has even been described as a 'black box' by President Lula da Silva. The Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 reports that citizens' access to justice varies significantly due to extreme income inequality in the country. According to Global Integrity 2006, access to justice for citizens earning less than twenty or thirty times the minimum weight is almost impossible. Despite the existence of a system of public defenders for poor defendants, good defence is extremely costly.

 

Business Corruption

Brazilian law is very procedural and the legal system functions inefficiently. The Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 reports that the country's legal system is one of the most crowded and contentious in the world. A culture of confrontation in the courts and rules that allow ample rights of appeal have led to a backlog of 20 million lawsuits.

According to Global Integrity 2006, small companies often cannot afford the costs of a legal suit. The World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2009 reveals that almost 50% of small and medium companies operating in Brazil consider the functioning of the courts as major constraint for doing business in the country.

A CMI 2008 report indicates that the general lack of trust in the judicial system makes companies reluctant to file complaints to the courts in situations where they have been victims of corruption. According to the business survey report, filing complaints to courts is considered a waste of time and money by most respondents. Because of this, many companies prefer to remain silent about corrupt acts committed against them, even if such crimes have cost them important contracts.

Political Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2009, the Brazilian legal system is 'complex and overburdened' and state courts are often subject to political and economic influence. Several legal provisions ensure the formal independence of judges, and the constitution grants the judiciary broad functional and structural autonomy. However, Freedom House 2009 reports that actual progress in judicial reform in Brazil has been slower than in other countries in the region because the judiciary primarily uses its formal independence to resist change and stop investigations of judicial corruption.

Transparency International 2006 reports that the overall picture of the judiciary is one of inefficiency and impunity. The National Council of Justice is currently the only external control mechanism over the judiciary. However, Transparency International 2006 points to the potential lack of independence of this organ, since it is composed mainly of judges. It is perceived by many to be a 'cosmetic move' since its decisions can be annulled by the judiciary itself. The high frequency of political corruption in Brazil is further aggravated by partial immunity protecting high-ranking public servants. Under the Constitution of 1988 (in Portuguese), only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to try the President, ministers, legislators and high court justices.

According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, distrust in the Brazilian judiciary has increased in the last two decades, and many judges have been involved in corruption scandals. An example of the questionable integrity of the judiciary was the scheme of sentences for sale uncovered in 2007 by the federal police. 5 magistrates - 3 chief judges and 2 federal judges – each received up to BRL 30,000 per month to emit and maintain decisions allowing the opening and running of bingos.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2010:
- Enforcing a commercial contract in Brazil requires a company to go through an average of 45 administrative procedures, taking an average of 616 days at a cost of 16.5% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2009-2010:
- Business executives give the Brazilian judiciary's level of independence from influences of government, citizens, or companies a score of 3.6 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal framework for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.1 and 3.3 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2009:
- Only 19.5% of companies believe the judiciary is fair, impartial and uncorrupted.

Latinobarómetro: Annual Report 2008 (see English version):
- 41% of the surveyed households believe that is likely or very likely to obtain a favourable sentence if bribing a judge.

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the judiciary a score of 3.3 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').