Portuguese 
Spanish 
TST Decision Clarifies That Retirement Benefits Cannot Be Seized When The Debt Is Civil, Reinforcing Protection Provided In The Civil Procedure Code
The decision of the Specialized Section II in Individual Disputes of the Superior Labor Court, issued in 2024, clarified that retirement benefits cannot be seized when the debt involves civil obligations. The understanding arose after a challenge presented by a lawyer from a logistics company, who had 20% of his retirement blocked in a labor execution initiated by a beverage company. The analysis occurred because, according to the panel, the debt did not have an alimentary character.
To explain the case, the process began in 2017, when the lawyer withdrew, based on a court order issued by the 9th Labor Court of Salvador, the amount of R$ 194.6 thousand. However, the subsidiary responsible company alleged that there was a material error in the authorization and requested the release of the amounts in its favor.
Material Error And Measures Taken By The Labor Court
Thus, the court ordered the blocking of financial assets, the inclusion of the lawyer’s name in debtor registries, and the monthly seizure of the retirement benefits. However, the lawyer filed a writ of security, arguing that he believed the deposit had been correctly made. He claimed that he intended to refund the amounts, even if in installments.
-
Seniors Over 60 Can Travel for Free Across Brazil: Elderly Statute Ensures Two Free Bus Seats and 50% Discount When Full for Low-Income Passengers
-
Detran RJ starts requiring a toxicological test for those obtaining their first driver’s license in the car and motorcycle category starting June 29; see who will be affected.
-
Florida takes TikTok to court and accuses the Chinese giant ByteDance of ignoring the law that bars minors under 14, while parents and authorities demand more protection for children on social networks.
-
Chamber approves constitutional amendment reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 18 to 16 years; what now?
However, the Regional Labor Court of the 5th Region dismissed the case understanding that there was a proper appeal, such as a petition appeal or incidental precautionary action. Shortly after, the lawyer appealed to the TST.
Analysis Of Immediate Risk And Application Of The Legislation
Minister Maria Helena Mallmann, the reporter of the SDI-2, explained that although the jurisprudence of the TST and Summary 267 of the Supreme Federal Court dismiss the use of a writ of security when there is a specific appeal, the measure may be accepted in the face of immediate risk of serious harm.
Additionally, the minister highlighted that Article 833, Paragraph IV of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that salaries and pensions are exempt from seizure, except in cases of alimony debts. Thus, as the execution sought only to return amounts that were wrongly seized, the obligation had a civil nature and not an alimentary one.
According to the rapporteur, “regardless of the reasons why the lawyer withdrew amounts that were not owed to him, the amount executed does not have an alimentary character”. Therefore, the seizure was lifted, and the decision was reached unanimously.
Understanding Reaffirmed And Legal Impact
Consequently, the decision reinforces the application of procedural legislation and the guarantees aimed at protecting the livelihood of retirees. Furthermore, the judgment reaffirms that the return of amounts received unduly, when it does not involve alimentary obligations, does not authorize the seizure of retirement benefits. As reported, the conclusion respected legal parameters and followed an understanding consolidated by labor jurisprudence.
Reinforcement Of Legal Security Practices
Thus, the Superior Labor Court reinforced the judicious use of procedural measures, ensuring that executions do not exceed the limits imposed by legislation. In addition, the decision strengthens transparency and predictability in judicial processes involving social security benefits.
