The Special Court of the Supreme Court’s decision on 21/02/2024 was unanimous.
If the time taken for a judicial blockage through physical or electronic means affects funds in a current account or other financial investments, the protection against seizure may also apply to those investments, up to a limit of forty minimum wages. This is contingent upon the party involved in the legal process demonstrating that the funds serve as a reserve to secure basic necessities.
(REsp 1.677.144-RS, Presided over by Min. Herman Benjamin, Special Court, unanimous decision on 21/02/24) (Source: STJ Information 804)
Simply naming a financial application is not sufficient to guarantee its protection from seizure as specified in Article 833, X of the CPC/15.
Refer to Article 833, Section X of the Civil Procedure Code of 2015.
Impenhorable items are listed in Article 833.
X represents the sum deposited in a savings account, capped at 40 times the minimum wage.
It is important to acknowledge that the name of a financial application alone does not ensure the required protection as the financial landscape has evolved.
The norm on impenhorability should be understood in accordance with the 1988 Federal Constitution to safeguard fundamental rights.
Keep in mind that this does not permit a broad interpretation of rules with a limiting objective, as exemption from attachment is a deviation from the principle of financial accountability.
Explore our content for a more comprehensive insight into the functioning of the CPC.
How important is it to your operational components?
The ruling can mostly affect procedural aspects in civil law, particularly in cases related to civil enforcement matters like pledges and the transferability of assets.
Encouraging support in the procedural aspects of the initial request and objections to the enforcement, particularly when seeking to contest a seizure or freezing of assets in a civil enforcement.
Learn more about
STJ’s Information REsp 1.677.144-RS.