Concentração de demandas no processo civil

Abstract

To what extent are the parties to a civil proceeding exclusively responsible for determining the object of litigation? Are there normative limits to the fragmentation of claims arising from the same legal situation—or even from a single legal relationship—across multiple lawsuits? How can one reconcile the parties’ autonomy in shaping the scope of the judicial dispute with the negative externalities resulting from the division of a single conflict into separate proceedings? These are among the central questions addressed by this dissertation, which aims to demonstrate the existence of an implicit principle of claim concentration in Brazilian civil procedure. This principle (i) prohibits the parties from splitting a minimal structural unit of a claim across multiple lawsuits and (ii) generally requires that claims arising from a common legal situation be joined and adjudicated within a single proceeding. Grounded in a legal-dogmatic methodological approach, the thesis is organized into three parts. The first reexamines the dogmatic foundations underlying access to civil justice—such as the principles of party disposition, the principle of demand, and the right of access to the courts—through the lenses of the good administration of justice and the economic analysis of law. It contends that the way disputes are brought before the judiciary can significantly influence systemic efficiency and the level of judicial congestion. The second part explores the phenomenon of conflict fragmentation across distinct proceedings. It analyzes this issue not only through the traditional framework of abuse of process but also by engaging with theories concerning the composition of the object of litigation. It examines both the classical view, which defines the object based on procedural elements (such as the claim and procedural request), and broader theoretical constructs that link it to the underlying substantive legal situation from which the claim originates. While acknowledging that this latter perspective is more effective in discouraging the proliferation of proceedings arising from a single conflict, the dissertation does not reject the traditional theory. Instead, it advocates for a flexible approach, one that varies according to the nature of the substantive right at stake and the procedural instruments available to the parties. From this analysis emerges a principle of claim concentration, which identifies the object of litigation with the underlying legal situation and, as a rule, requires the consolidation of claims and causes of action—while allowing for justified exceptions. The final part of the thesis addresses the procedural consequences of an unjustified failure to observe this principle, proposing differentiated legal responses depending on the gravity of the conduct and its specific impact on the case. Ultimately, the dissertation seeks to contribute to the delicate balance between ensuring meaningful access to justice and promoting the effectiveness of individual lawsuits, thus advancing both social pacification and the integrity of the judicial system.