Since 2021, there have been many requests for review and interruptions in the judgment of REsp n. 1.795.982/SP, which will define under the general repercussion regime (binding decision for all courts in the country) whether civil debts should be updated using the Selic Rate or monetary correction and interest of 1% per month.
On March 6, it seemed that this issue would finally be resolved, but unfortunately another request for a rehearing, made by Justice Mauro Campbell Marques, postponed the resolution of the issue. The vote was 6-5 in favor of adopting the Selic Rate.
Since 1995, the Selic Rate has been used to correct judgments against the Public Treasury and, since 2008, the case law of the Superior Court of Justice has adopted the same rate for civil debts arising from contractual or non-contractual indemnification. However, this is not a settled issue.
Justice Luis Felipe Salomão, the appeal’s rapporteur, voted against the Selic rate, on the grounds that it does not reflect the market’s economic situation, but rather serves as an instrument of monetary policy to combat inflation. As such, it would not serve to preserve the purchasing power of values over time.
Justice Raul Araújo, opening the dissent, argued that the Civil Code itself does not distinguish between the roles of interest and monetary correction in updating civil debts. The Selic Rate, made up of a “mix” of monetary correction and interest, would represent a more correct index for updating compensation and judicial debts, as it would harmonize civil legislation with the Economic Policy practiced over decades in Brazil.
It is important to note that the issue goes far beyond the choice of an index that fairly corrects the value of civil court convictions, but also represents a factor of Judicial Policy. The Selic rate would excessively reduce the value of the updates, which could encourage debtors to lengthen the procedural process in order to postpone payment of the debt, further overloading an already busy Judiciary with approximately 70 million pending lawsuits.
On the other hand, the monetary correction added to the interest would help to encourage litigation, since the winner would get a very good return, even higher than, for example, the average seen in the fixed-income investment market.
Anyway, let’s wait and see which side the scales of justice will tip.
