Core holding: Article 139, IV also applies to monetary enforcement

Article 139, IV empowers judges to determine inductive, coercive, mandamental, or subrogatory measures necessary to ensure compliance with judicial decisions. In this precedent, the STJ expressly confirmed that atypical measures may be used not only for obligations to do or refrain from doing something, but also for the enforcement of monetary obligations.

This is a meaningful clarification for civil enforcement practice in Brazil. Until now, atypical measures were more commonly discussed in connection with “to do/not to do” orders, where courts traditionally relied on coercive daily fines (astreintes) and other tools. The STJ’s decision makes explicit that the same rationale—ensuring effectiveness of judicial determinations—can extend to collection and payment scenarios as well.

The STJ sets cumulative safeguards for when atypical measures are permissible

Because the case was decided under the repetitive appeals framework, the STJ was required to articulate objective criteria. The Court therefore established cumulative requirements that must be satisfied before atypical coercive measures may be imposed:

1. Effectiveness and proportionality balancing, including consideration of the principle that enforcement should be carried out through the least burdensome means for the debtor.
2. Subsidiarity, meaning atypical measures should generally be considered only after typical enforcement mechanisms (e.g., standard attachments, freezes, seizures, and other conventional collection tools) have been exhausted or shown insufficient in the concrete circumstances.
3. Case-specific and reasoned justification, requiring a transparent explanation linking the measure to the facts of the case and the objective of inducing compliance.
4. Respect for due process and constitutional constraints, including proportionality, reasonableness, and temporal adequacy (i.e., measures should not be indefinite or untethered from purpose).

These criteria are central to the decision’s practical impact: the STJ simultaneously expands the availability of atypical tools in monetary enforcement and makes clear that they are not automatic and cannot be applied by rote.

Examples: permissible measures, if properly justified and tailored

Within these boundaries, the STJ indicated that courts may adopt measures such as:

• Suspension of a driver’s license,
• Retention of a passport, and
• Restrictions on the use of credit cards,

provided such measures are justified in light of the specific facts, are calibrated to induce compliance, and do not function as punitive sanctions. The decision is explicit that atypical measures are enforcement instruments, not procedural punishment.

Why this matters for clients: practical implications and strategy

For creditors and judgment holders, the ruling strengthens the enforcement toolkit where conventional methods fail—particularly in cases involving debtors who appear “judgment-proof” on paper, structure assets strategically, or frustrate collection through delay. The decision also underscores the importance of building a record: creditors seeking atypical measures should be prepared to demonstrate (i) attempted use of typical mechanisms and why they were insufficient, and (ii) why the proposed measure is proportionate and likely to be effective in that debtor’s circumstances.

For debtors, the precedent raises the stakes of post-judgment strategy and increases the value of early, well-supported arguments on proportionality and due process. Debtors should expect greater scrutiny of conduct that suggests intentional non-compliance and should be prepared to propose less burdensome alternatives (e.g., structured payment plans, guarantees, or other compliance mechanisms) where appropriate.

For corporate groups and cross-border stakeholders, the decision is also relevant because atypical measures may be invoked in situations where conventional collection tools are less effective—such as asset-light businesses, complex ownership structures, or disputes involving foreign parties and cross-border asset profiles.

Open questions: corporate entities and non-parties

The STJ did not resolve certain high-impact issues that often arise in complex enforcement scenarios. Uncertainty remains regarding: (i) the outer limits of measures imposed directly on corporate entities, such as constraints affecting import/export activities, public procurement participation, or other operational restrictions; and (ii) whether—and under what procedural safeguards—measures could be directed at shareholders or corporate officers who are not formal parties to the enforcement proceeding but may be positioned to ensure compliance. These issues are likely to be shaped by future case law and may become focal points in large-value enforcement disputes.