On August 1, 2023, the Special Court of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) postponed once again, following a request for review, the judgment of Special Appeal No. 1,795,982\/SP, which discusses the default interest rate that should apply to judicial orders within the scope of Private Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 406 of the Civil Code provides that\u00a0\u201cWhen default interest is not agreed upon, or is agreed upon without a stipulated rate, or when it stems from a legal provision, it shall be set according to the rate in effect for the default on the payment of taxes owed to the National Treasury.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The dilemma lies in knowing whether the default interest rate mentioned in the aforementioned provision is % (one percent) per month, pursuant to art. 161, paragraph 1, of the National Tax Code, or the Selic rate (which encompasses default interest and monetary correction), considering that it is the index that applies to payments owed to the National Treasury (art. 13 of Law 9.065\/95 and art. 39, paragraph 4, of Law 9.250\/95).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since 2008, the STJ has understood that the Selic rate must be applied, as decided in EREsp 727.842\/SP. However, in October 2021, the 4th Panel submitted REsp No. 1.795.982\/SP to be judged by the Special Court for a reassessment of the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The trial of REsp No. 1,795,982\/SP began in March 2023, at which time the Reporting Justice Luis Felipe Salom\u00e3o voted against the application of the Selic rate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To date, the score is tied 2 to 2. Minister Humberto Martins voted with the rapporteur, but Ministers Raul Ara\u00fajo and Jo\u00e3o Ot\u00e1vio de Noronha disagreed, advocating for the continued use of the Selic rate. When the trial resumed on August 1, 2023, a request for review was made by Minister Benedito Gon\u00e7alves, which was converted into a collective review request.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is an important judgment that could put an end to the long-standing debate over the correct interpretation of Article 406 of the Civil Code and will have a significant impact on how debts arising from judicial rulings are updated.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/www.conjur.com.br\/2023-ago-01\/corte-especial-stj-adia-definicao-correcao-dividas-civis?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=linkedin<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Em 1\u00ba de agosto de 2023, a Corte Especial do Superior Tribunal de Justi\u00e7a (STJ) adiou novamente, ap\u00f3s pedido de vista, o julgamento do Recurso Especial n\u00ba 1.795.982\/SP,…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":11,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-jurisprudencia"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/camargoviana.adv.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}