Originally from Collective Litigation in Europe: Law and Practice – Preview Page

1. INSIGHTS INTO JURISDICTION IN BRAZILIAN COLLECTIVE ACTIONS

The collective action mechanism was introduced into the Brazilian legal system through Federal Law 7,347 of 24 July, 1985 (the Public Civil Actions Act, local acronym LACP), article 1 of which establishes a liability suit for redress of moral and property damage caused: i) to the environment; ii) to consumers; iii) to assets and rights of artistic, esthetic, historical, tourism and landscaping value; iv)  to any other diffuse or collective interests; v) to the economic system; vi) to the urban environment; vii) to the honor and dignity of racial, ethnic or religious groups; and viii) to the public and social assets and heritage.  

In the wake of the LACP, Federal Law 8,038 of 11 July, 1990 (the Consumer Protection Code, local acronym CDC) regulated the use of collective actions to defend the collective interests of consumers and to impose civil liability on the supplier (vendor) of goods or services, expressly noting, however, that the LACP should also apply to consumer relations.  

Under the LACP, the judge acting in the place where a damage has occurred has authority to hear and adjudicate on the corresponding collective action. This is the general rule, which evidently translates into significant hindrances and pitfalls when it comes to defining the place of damage and, by extension, the judge with authority over the case. On top of that, the CDC establishes that the courts sitting in the state capitals or in the Federal District are competent to hear and determine the cases involving homogeneous individual interests in damages awarded at national or regional level (noting that Brazil is composed of 26 states plus the Federal District (Brasilia), each of them with a slew of federal and state judges making up the Judiciary structure).