STJ admits the waiver of excess value to demand in the Federal Special Courts

Provided for in article 3, caput, of Law 10.259 / 2001

The First Section of the Superior Court of Justice, unanimously, decided that it is possible for the interested party to waive amounts in excess of 60 minimum wages, to demand in the Federal Special Courts. Thus, the thesis was fixed that “to the author who wishes to litigate within the scope of the Federal Special Court, it is lawful to waive, expressly and for the purpose of attributing value to the case, the amount that exceeds the 60 minimum wages provided for in article 3, caput, of Law 10.259 / 2001, included therein, where applicable, the installments falling due ”(Theme 1030).

In the allocation decision, the processing, in national territory, of all proceedings, pending, individual or collective, regarding the issue submitted to judgment “possibility, or not, in the light of Article 3 of Law No. 10,259 / 2001, was suspended, for the party to waive the amount exceeding sixty minimum wages, including installments falling due, in order to be able to demand within the scope of the Federal Special Courts ”.

REsp nº 1.807665 / SC, chosen as representative of the controversy, was brought by the Union in the face of a ruling handed down by the 4th Region TRF in a Repetitive Demand Resolution Incident. In that decision, it was understood by the possibility of waiving, as long as it expresses, the amount that exceeds the limit of competence established in Law No. 10,259 / 2001 (60 minimum wages) to opt for the rite of the Federal Special Courts. In addition, in the TRF-4 judgment, theses were established admitting the waiver expressed in the initial or in the sentence compliance stage, the guidelines for determining the value of the case with definition of the competence and systematic to be observed for the payment of the credit.

It should also be noted, according to the National Database of Repetitive Demands and Mandatory Precedents, of the National Council of Justice, that 406 cases were suspended in the country, pending the establishment of a thesis on the affected issue.

The STJ’s understanding was based on the case law of the Court that admits the waiver for adoption of the procedure provided for in Law No. 10,259 / 2001, confirmation of the jurisdiction of the Federal Special Court in the event of express waiver by the plaintiff of the action and joint interpretation of article 3. , § 2, of Law No. 10,259 / 2001 with the CPC rule for fixing the economic content of the demand, consistent with the equivalence of the value of installments falling due to an annual installment for obligations for an indefinite period or longer than 1 year.

The rapporteur, Minister Sérgio Kukina, stated that Law No. 10,259 / 2001, despite not expressly mentioning the possibility of resignation for the purpose of establishing the jurisdiction of the Federal Special Courts, in paragraph 4, of article 17, allows the party that is resigned to credit of the excess amount, so you can choose to pay the balance without the precatory.

Thus, according to the Reporting Minister, it would not be reasonable to forbid the interested party, when filing the lawsuit, the possibility of having values ​​in favor of a faster resolution of the dispute in the Special Courts. It was also added that there are no legal norms that hinder the plaintiff from claiming a minor financial claim, in order to fit his request within the limit of authority established in Law No. 10,259 / 2001.

By: Wilson Sales Belchior