The Special Court of the Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision on 21/02/2024.
If the time needed for judicial blockage, whether through physical or electronic means (Bacenjud), affects funds in a current account or other financial investments, it could lead to the protection of those investments from seizure, with a limit of forty minimum wages, as long as the party undergoing the legal action proves that the funds are essential for basic needs.
The information comes from a Special Court decision delivered unanimously on February 21, 2024, by Minister Herman Benjamin.
Only naming the financial asset does not guarantee protection against seizure according to Article 833, X of the CPC/15.
Refer to Article 833, Section X of the CPC/2015.
They cannot be seized:
The deposit in the savings account cannot exceed 40 times the minimum wage.
Changes in financial applications have occurred, highlighting the importance of recognizing that simply knowing the name of the financial application is insufficient to ensure legal protection.
The rule on non-seizability should be understood in the context of the 1988 Federal Constitution to safeguard basic rights.
Imperative to note that this does not permit a broad interpretation of rules with a restrictive intent, as exemption from seizure is a deviation from the principle of financial liability.
Explore our text for a clearer grasp of how the CPC operates.
How important are your procedural components?
The ruling could primarily impact procedural aspects within civil law, particularly in cases related to civil enforcement matters like liens and the transferability of assets.
Encouraging assistance in the procedural aspects of the initial petition and objections to the execution, particularly when aiming to contest an order of seizing or freezing assets in a civil proceeding.
Learn more about
Information provided in STJ’s decision number 1.677.144-RS.
