There is a widespread belief that every early decision in a legal proceeding necessarily depends on proving urgency—something that must be addressed quickly due to the risk of irreparable harm. While this understanding is correct in the context of urgent relief, it does not apply to another, lesser-known procedural mechanism: evidence-based relief, which can be granted without any need to demonstrate risk or danger of harm.
Dr. Valdemir Ferreira Santos, a judge, assesses this type of request within a legal framework in which the strength of the evidence already produced, rather than the urgency of the situation, is what justifies an early decision on part of the case.
The Key Difference Between the Two Types of Relief
Article 300 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure requires, for urgent relief, the simultaneous demonstration of the likelihood of the asserted right and the danger of harm or risk to the effectiveness of the proceedings. Article 311, on the other hand, establishes that evidence-based relief may be granted regardless of any demonstration of such danger, provided that the asserted right is supported by sufficiently strong evidence and falls within one of the specific circumstances expressly provided for by law.
This difference in rationale reflects distinct purposes: while urgent relief protects against risks arising from the passage of time, evidence-based relief anticipates the effects of a decision simply because the asserted right is already so clear that it would make little sense to wait for the entire proceeding to conclude before recognizing it.
The Four Circumstances Provided for by Law
The legislation establishes specific circumstances in which this type of relief may be granted: when there is an abuse of the right of defense or a clear intention by the opposing party to delay the proceedings; when the factual allegations can be proven solely through documentary evidence and there is already a legal position established in the adjudication of repetitive cases or in a binding precedent; when the claim seeks the recovery of an asset and is supported by adequate documentary evidence of a deposit agreement; or when the initial complaint is supported by sufficient documentary evidence and the defendant fails to present evidence capable of raising reasonable doubt.
In the exercise of his judicial duties, Valdemir Ferreira Santos carefully examines each of these circumstances, since they constitute an exhaustive list. In other words, outside these specific situations, evidence-based relief cannot be granted, even if the asserted right appears, at first glance, to be highly compelling.
When Is It Possible to Decide Without Hearing the Other Party?
In two of these circumstances—those involving abuse of the right of defense and claims seeking the recovery of an asset based on a deposit agreement—the law allows the judge to issue a preliminary decision without first hearing the opposing party. This is because, in these specific cases, the legislature determined that the strength of the circumstances presented is sufficient to justify immediate judicial intervention, even before the adversarial process has been fully established.
Valdemir Ferreira Santos explains that this exceptional possibility requires heightened attention from the judge, since deciding without first hearing the other party represents a temporary limitation of an important procedural safeguard and is justified only in the circumstances expressly authorized by the procedural legislation currently in force.
How Does This Mechanism Relate to Summary Judgment on the Merits?
Although evidence-based relief anticipates some of the practical effects of the final decision, it should not be confused with summary judgment on the merits. While the latter definitively resolves the case and carries the force of res judicata, evidence-based relief results in a provisional decision that may be subject to its own form of appeal and eventual review if new elements emerge during the proceedings, which continue to move forward.
This technical distinction is important so that the parties understand that, even when evidence-based relief is granted, the proceedings continue their normal course until a final and definitive decision is issued on the entire merits of the matter under dispute.
A Mechanism Designed to Promote Procedural Efficiency
Understanding this mechanism helps citizens recognize that procedural efficiency does not always depend on the existence of concrete urgency; it may also arise from the evident strength of the evidence already presented in the case. Accurately determining whether a particular case falls within one of these specifically defined circumstances is a technical task that Valdemir Ferreira Santos performs whenever such a request comes before him, ensuring that the relief is not granted beyond the precise limits established by procedural law.
