10/03/2026
Brazilian courts have been diverging in relation to the application of Federal Law No. 14,879/2024, which amended Article 63 of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure to establish that the jurisdiction clause will only have effect if it “expressly refers to a specific legal transaction and is relevant to the domicile or residence of one of the parties or to the place of the obligation”.
The main issue concerns the application of the law to cases filed after its entry into force, but which relate to contracts formalized previously, in which the parties have established conditions different from those provided for in the current wording of Article 63.
Under the jurisdiction of the São Paulo Court of Justice, according to a survey published by “Valor Econômico”, of 35 cases analyzed from this perspective, in 18 cases the São Paulo Court applied the law to contracts entered into previously, considering that it is a procedural rule which, according to Brazilian law, has immediate application.
One of the judgments in this regard occurred in the case of Interlocutory Appeal No. 2208689-78.2024.8.26.0000, reported by Judge Alexandre David Malfatti – 12th Chamber of Private Law.
In 17 other cases, however, the São Paulo Court rejected the application of the new law, considering that it should not be applied to contracts formalized prior to its entry into force, maintaining the validity of the jurisdiction clause with standards different from the current wording of Article 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Under the Superior Court of Justice, there is a judgment stating that “it is irrelevant to question the date of the procedural agreement, and only the date of filing of the lawsuit should be observed as the time frame for the application of the new law” (Conflict of Jurisdiction No. 206.933, reported by Minister Nancy Andrighi).
However, the aforementioned decision of the Superior Court of Justice is not binding. Therefore, state courts may rule according to their own understanding, which results in legal uncertainty regarding the issue.
Therefore, for contracts signed prior to the current rule, it is highly recommended that the contractual conditions be analyzed individually to define the best strategy for protecting rights, which may include amending the contract to comply with the current rule.
Authored by: Ricardo Castro Ramos
