On June 5, President Lula da Silva signed Law No. 14,879/24 into law, which introduced significant amendments to the Brazilian civil procedural law, especially regarding the choice of jurisdiction in private agreements.

Pursuant to the new law, the choice of jurisdiction shall be directly linked to the domicile of the parties or to the place of compliance with the obligation. This measure aims to combat the abusive practice of filing lawsuits in random courts, chosen because, for example, they have case law that is more favorable to one of the parties, or even to create geographical barriers that make it difficult for one of the parties to defend their interests, such as choosing distant states or places.

By restricting this practice, the law seeks to ensure that proceedings be conducted in places that facilitate the active participation of both parties, as well to promote greater transparency and procedural fairness. Upon enactment of the new law, any action filed in a venue unrelated to the domicile of the parties or the place of the obligation may be declined by the judge of the case on their own initiative.

However, the new legislation is not immune to criticism. One of the main points of dispute in legal circles has been the limitation on the choice of specialized courts, which in some states offer more suitable structures for certain types of litigation.

Complex business disputes or intellectual property issues, for example, can benefit significantly from specialized courts that have greater technical expertise. The impossibility of choosing these specialized courts can adversely affect the speed and quality of judicial decisions, forcing specific cases to be tried by general courts that may not have the same technical competence.

In summary, although Law No. 14,879/24 represents an advance in the protection of the rights of the parties and in the search for a more balanced justice system, it is essential to find a balance between the restriction on the choice of jurisdiction and the need for access to specialized courts.
A stringent application of this law may compromise the efficiency and accuracy of decisions in areas that require specific knowledge, suggesting that future adjustments and judicial interpretations are necessary to optimize the benefits of this amendment to the law.

* * * * * * * *

For more information on the above or other matters, please contact Maristela SA Rossetti (mar@rraa.com.br) or Gilberto Rossetti (gmr@rraa.com.br). This article is based on publicly available information and given for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice foreign subsidiary as a comprehensive analysis of the matters referred to herein.