4/23/2026
The Superior Court of Justice (STJ), when ruling on Repetitive Issue No. 1,296, established an important guideline regarding the imposition of coercive fines in obligations to do or not to do. The Court consolidated its understanding that personal service on the debtor is an indispensable requirement for the application of so-called astreintes, reaffirming the validity of Precedent No. 410 following the entry into force of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC/15).
The controversy addressed stems from an apparent tension between provisions of the CPC/15. On the one hand, the general rule provides for service on the debtor through their counsel, via publication in the official court gazette. On the other hand, the STJ’s established case law requires personal service on the party for fines arising from non-compliance with obligations to do or not to do to be enforceable. The judgment harmonized this interpretation, dispelling doubts that had arisen in legal scholarship and in the courts.
The Court emphasized that compliance with a judgment must observe, where applicable, the rules governing enforcement proceedings, which, in certain circumstances, require personal service on the judgment debtor.
Another central aspect of the decision concerns the nature of the obligations at issue. Unlike obligations to pay a sum of money, obligations to do or not to do often depend on direct conduct by the debtor.
From a practical standpoint, the thesis established enhances legal certainty and has a direct impact on the conduct of proceedings. The imposition of astreintes now unequivocally depends on prior personal service on the debtor, which tends to reduce future disputes regarding their enforceability. At the same time, the decision underscores the need for procedural rigor in determining the starting point for the accrual of such fines.
