What Does the Benefit of Free Access to Justice Include?

On March 28, 2025, in the case “Olivera, Fernanda Raquel y Otros c/ Ciudad de la Pizza SRL s/ Daños y Perjuicios,” the National Court of Appeals in Civil Matters convened en banc to determine whether the benefit of free access to justice (Law 24240, article 53) includes–besides an exemption from court fees and other charges related to the initiation of the claim–the legal costs when the plaintiffs are ordered to pay them and the defendant’s motion to prove their solvency is unsuccessful.

The Court acknowledged that the issue is controversial and has led to divided opinions. It highlighted that part of the legal doctrine and case law holds that the benefit of free access to justice only covers the exemption from paying court fees, on the grounds that:

• the benefit of free access to justice is not equivalent to the benefit of bringing a suit in forma pauperis (beneficio de litigar sin gastos), as the latter is broader and must be processed separately,
• legal costs are not borne by the State and constitute indispensable remuneration for professional work. Some doctrine argues that a broad interpretation of the benefit of free access to justice could affect the property rights of attorneys, experts, and other judicial auxiliaries, by depriving them of their rightful work compensation,
• there is a risk of abusing the benefit, which could result in baseless litigation that unfairly shifts costs to the defendant.

After analyzing the various doctrinal and jurisprudential positions, the Court held that the benefit of free access to justice includes the exemption from paying court fees, any other charges or expenses related to the initiation of the claim, and also procedural costs. However, defendants may initiate an ancillary proceeding to demonstrate plaintiffs’ solvency.

To reach this decision, the Court argued that:

• No distinction should be made between the benefit of bringing a suit in forma pauperis and the consumer law-based gratuity, as both aim to protect litigants in a vulnerable positions.
• It would be illogical to limit the benefit solely to the exemption from court fees, as these are usually insignificant compared to other litigation expenses such as professional fees, experts’ opinions, and procedural costs, especially in low value claims typical on consumer law.
• Considering that access to justice acknowledges the consumer’s weaker position in the consumer relationship, the gratuity provided under consumer protection laws is a key instrument to ensure access to justice, as procedural costs may exceed the amount claimed and undermine the principle of equality before the law.

This decision aligns with the Argentine Supreme Court precedent “ADDUC y otros c/AYSA SA y otro s/proceso de conocimiento” and with the National Court of Appeals on Commercial Matters en banc ruling “Hambo, Débora Raquel c/CMR Falabella S.A. s/sumarísimo,” which interpreted that intention of the lawmakers had been to exempt plaintiffs bringing actions under Law 24240 from having to to pay procedural costs.