Congestion and duration of proceedings in Europe and Brazil
Comparison of congestion and duration of processes based on data from the CNJ and the Council of Europe.
As previously discussed, there are two indicators widely used in comparative law when the purpose is to measure the efficiency of a judicial system: the level of response to demand and the duration of the proceedings. Recap these concepts here, if you prefer:
Henrique Costa 
Post detailing the methodology of the indicators
With regard to meeting demand, we have seen that Brazil has been reaching levels close to 110% of annual demand . This puts us close to the Finland and Portugal . The top of this indicator is occupied by Cyprus, Greece and Italy , which confirms that - in isolation - this is not a sufficient indicator to attest to the health and quality of the Judiciary.
It is enough to see that there are several developed countries occupying the lower average of this ranking, as is the case of the following: United Kingdom, Austria, Netherlands, Sweden and Germany :
In addition to the level of demand fulfillment (IAD), there is a more useful indicator, but also more complex to be portrayed. It is the duration of the processes. To begin with, Brazil reports the average indicator in years (6 years of pending proceedings between the first and second levels of jurisdiction). In other words, the duration of the knowledge phase of a process exceeds 2 thousand days in Brazil .
But, to be in a more comparable situation, let's assume that the duration of a process in Brazil was only that of knowledge in the first degree of jurisdiction, which is equivalent to almost 1,400 days. This duration would already be 40% longer than the slowest judiciary in Europe. So the process in Brazil is very long from any perspective.
Being incomparable with the European standard of expectation of timely solution, it is only up to us to report some curiosities. Portugal, Italy, the United Kingdom and Germany are in the group of the 10 slowest But Portugal is three times slower than average . The presence of the United Kingdom in this ranking is also noteworthy, as Brazil, Portugal and the United Kingdom have recently reformed their procedural systems.
I still don't know if the procedural reforms of these countries (which share the value of a powerful judge) were a cause or a consequence of the delay. I suppose that these reforms have increased the cost of the process, in terms of time and money, in Portugal and the United Kingdom. It would be a good subject for a future post. Studying comparative law is really an inexhaustible source of hypotheses.