A Autorização da Realização de Perícia no Âmbito dos Juizados Especiais da Fazenda Pública e o Problema da Ordinarização do Procedimento Sumaríssimo: O Paradoxo do Acesso À Justiça Simplificada

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This article discusses the legal repercussions arising from the authorization of expert evidence within the scope of the Special Court of Public Treasury and the consequent ordinary proceduralization of the summary procedure. Based on the principle of access to justice, the research investigates how the jurisprudential expansion of these courts’ jurisdiction, grounded on the value of the claim, has flexibilized the application of their guiding principles — celerity, simplicity, and informality. The main objective is to assess to what extent the admission of expert examinations compromises the essence of the special courts’ microsystem, originally designed to overcome the excessive formalism of ordinary justice. The methodology consisted of a deductive approach, through qualitative analysis of case law from the Superior Court of Justice and state courts, combined with bibliographic and documentary review. The findings indicate that the consolidated understanding of the STJ, by considering expert evidence irrelevant for determining jurisdiction, has influenced lower courts, transferring to the special courts complex claims that undermine their original purpose. It is concluded that the expansion of jurisdiction, legitimized under the justification of relieving the ordinary courts, compromises the effectiveness of judicial protection and distances litigants from the promise of swift and simplified justice, recommending legislative and interpretative alternatives that preserve its constitutional foundation and reaffirm the principles of orality, simplicity, and informality.

Keywords: Special Court of Public Treasury; Expert examination; Access to justice.