Post by anik4700 on Feb 27, 2024 23:08:54 GMT -8
Jurisprudence, without ever reaching a consensus. The old way The discussion about the interest rate for debt correction arose after 2002 because, under the Civil Code of 1916 , there was no room for maneuver. Article 1,062 indicated that the default interest rate, when not agreed, should be 6% per year. The second limitation was given by the Usury Law ( Decree 22,626/1933 ): the prohibition on setting interest rates higher than twice the legal rate in article 1,062 of the Civil Code — that is, 12% per year. It criminalized the conduct of defrauding the provisions of the law in order to subject the debtor to greater installments or charges. Even the Federal Constitution of 1988 was enacted with a limit on interest: 12% per year, in accordance with paragrap2.
The rule was revoked by Constitutional Amendment 40/2003, which opened the doors to an increase in interest without the risk of the charge being classified as a the Civil Code changed the scenario by introducing in article 406 the provision that, when such default interest is not agreed, it must be set according to the rate in force for late payment of taxes owed to the National Treasury. The tax rate is the Selic, adop Luxembourg Phone Number ted by the Central Bank as the main instrument of monetary policy and inflation control since 1999. Its use to correct tax debts is peacefully accepted. The problem arises when the debt concerns contractual and non-contractual obligations. CNJ Rapporteur, minister Luis Felipe Salomão defended removal from Selic when involving civil debts CNJ Selic in them The first and possibly most influential challenge to the use of Selic was made by the 1st Civil Law Conference of the Federal Justice Council, held in September 2002, just eight months after the new Civil Code came into force.
Statement 20 indicates that the default interest rate referred to in article 406 of the CC is that of article 161, paragraph 1, of the National Tax Code, that is, 1% per month. The justification coincides with the reasons currently used by minister Luis Felipe Salomão to propose the removal of Selic: as it includes late payment interest and monetary correction, its use is unfeasible when these two factors flow from different time frames. In cases of non-contractual liability, for example, default interest flows from the damaging event, as provided for in Precedent 54 of the STJ. For contractual liability, the initial count term is the summons. The monetary correction begins on the date of delivery of the decision that fixed its value, as stated in Summary 362. In 2008, the Special Court took a turn when judging EREsp 727.842 and, despite this, adopted Selic.
The rule was revoked by Constitutional Amendment 40/2003, which opened the doors to an increase in interest without the risk of the charge being classified as a the Civil Code changed the scenario by introducing in article 406 the provision that, when such default interest is not agreed, it must be set according to the rate in force for late payment of taxes owed to the National Treasury. The tax rate is the Selic, adop Luxembourg Phone Number ted by the Central Bank as the main instrument of monetary policy and inflation control since 1999. Its use to correct tax debts is peacefully accepted. The problem arises when the debt concerns contractual and non-contractual obligations. CNJ Rapporteur, minister Luis Felipe Salomão defended removal from Selic when involving civil debts CNJ Selic in them The first and possibly most influential challenge to the use of Selic was made by the 1st Civil Law Conference of the Federal Justice Council, held in September 2002, just eight months after the new Civil Code came into force.
Statement 20 indicates that the default interest rate referred to in article 406 of the CC is that of article 161, paragraph 1, of the National Tax Code, that is, 1% per month. The justification coincides with the reasons currently used by minister Luis Felipe Salomão to propose the removal of Selic: as it includes late payment interest and monetary correction, its use is unfeasible when these two factors flow from different time frames. In cases of non-contractual liability, for example, default interest flows from the damaging event, as provided for in Precedent 54 of the STJ. For contractual liability, the initial count term is the summons. The monetary correction begins on the date of delivery of the decision that fixed its value, as stated in Summary 362. In 2008, the Special Court took a turn when judging EREsp 727.842 and, despite this, adopted Selic.