On December 4th, 2025, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) concluded the judgment of Theme 1.137 and brought an end to one of the most heated discussions of recent years regarding the effectiveness of enforcement proceedings.
From now on, with binding effect, the possibility of suspending a debtor’s passport and driver’s license, and even blocking credit cards, is officially validated – provided that objective criteria are observed.
In practical terms, the STJ recognized that the traditional enforcement system has failed to address strategic default. For the first time, the Court outlined a clear path for the application of the atypical measures provided for in Article 139, IV, of the Civil Procedure Code – a deliberately open provision designed to allow judges to do what is necessary to ensure compliance with judicial orders.
The appeals that gave rise to Theme 1.137 reached the STJ back in 2022 and addressed precisely the extent to which the Judiciary may act in confronting debtors who, despite not paying, maintain a comfortable lifestyle, shield assets, or adopt evasive conduct.
The STJ’s answer was clear: the Judiciary does indeed have broader room for action than traditionally recognized, as long as the adoption of such measures follows six central parameters.
1. Balancing effectiveness and minimal burden: It must be demonstrated that the measure has real capacity to pressure that specific debtor – it is not about punishment, but inducement. Practical example: for an insolvent debtor, blocking a credit card is useless; for one who travels regularly or maintains high consumption, it may exert immediate coercive pressure.
2. Mandatory subsidiarity: Atypical measures may only be granted after traditional means (attachment of money, vehicles, real estate, or corporate shares) have been exhausted. Requests lacking such demonstration will be denied.
3. Adequate reasoning: It should be demonstrated, based on the specific circumstances of the case, the reasons that justify adopting the exceptional measure. Generic reasoning will not be accepted.
4. Guarantee of prior notice and opportunity to respond: The debtor must necessarily be notified to present prior comments.
5. Proportionality and reasonableness: There must be a clear showing that the measure is suitable and not excessively burdensome or unnecessary.
6.Temporal limitation: These measures cannot have an indefinite duration. They must have a defined time period, with renewal permitted only if the justifying grounds persist.
With the judgment of Theme 1.137, the STJ turned what was previously nebulous into something operational. Creditors now have real room to employ more assertive strategies – provided they know how to use them. This requires formulating requests strategically: demonstrating the exhaustion of typical measures, the relevance and concrete effectiveness of the requested measure, and its proportionality and reasonableness.
By establishing this precedent, the STJ not only ends years of controversy but also strengthens the Judiciary’s role in promoting a swifter, more efficient enforcement system aligned with the contemporary reality of strategic default. It will now be up to creditors to master the defined criteria and convert this tool into concrete results.
