STF declares unconstitutional state rule that suspended payments in payroll loan contracts

Unconstitutionality of Law No. 10,733 / 2020
The plenary session of the Supreme Federal Court, unanimously, upheld ADI 6.484 / RN, declaring the unconstitutionality of Law No. 10.733 / 2020, of the State of Rio Grande do Norte. The following judgmental thesis was established: “it is unconstitutional state law that determines the temporary suspension of the collection of voluntary consignments contracted by state civil servants”, in accordance with the vote of the rapporteur Minister Luís Roberto Barroso.
Said state law, published on June 16, 2020, established the suspension of collection by non-cooperative financial institutions for a period of 180 days for voluntary consignments contracted by public servants in the state of Rio Grande do Norte. The rule covered civilian and military civil servants, active, inactive, pensioners and those in the paid reserve of state military corporations. In addition, Law No. 10,733 / 2020 prevented the imposition of interest and fines on suspended installments that should be added at the end of the contract.
The ADI was filed by the National Confederation of the Financial System (CONSIF), supported by the argumentative reasoning of unconstitutionality of the state law, evidenced, among other elements, in the usurpation of the Union’s competence to legislate; violation of the principle of separation of powers; non-compliance with constitutional guarantees regarding the non-retroactivity of laws and the non-compliance with the perfect legal act; and offense to the principles of legal certainty, proportionality and free enterprise.
The vote of the Rapporteur Minister Luís Roberto Barroso recognized the formal unconstitutionality due to usurpation of the Union’s private competence to legislate on civil law and credit policy (article 22, I and VII, CF / 1988), as well as defect of material unconstitutionality due to the violation of the principle of legal certainty, since the state law promoted a disproportionate intervention in validly constituted private relations.
The invasion of the Member State in matters relating to civil law was due to the fact that state law interferes in all contractual relations established between state civil servants and financial institutions for the voluntary assignment of credit. In the vote, the Legislative Assembly’s argument regarding the object of the contested law was a consumer matter, competing legislative competence. This is because such competence “does not authorize Member States to issue norms about contractual relations, since this attribution is part of the Federal Union’s competence to legislate on civil law”.
The suspension of payments linked to the prevention of the incidence of interest and fines constituted an incursion by the Member State in matters relating to credit policy, which is reserved for the legislative competence of the Union. In this regard, the Rapporteur Minister maintained that “the existence State laws that change the conditions of payroll loan contracts can impact the National Financial System and generate negative effects for the economy of the whole country ”.
Finally, with regard to the material unconstitutionality defect, it was understood that the suspension of the automatic discount on the payroll for up to 180 days and the determination concerning the non-incidence of interest materialized disproportionate interference in all contracts signed by civil and military civil servants of the state of Rio Grande do Norte.

By: Wilson Sales Belchior