Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
5 min of reading 
1 comment 
PL 239/2025, authored by Congressman General Pazuello, initially proposed imprisonment of 2 to 8 years for illegal charging in public spaces, but it was withdrawn from voting.
A Bill number 239/2025 aimed to create a new article in the Penal Code to characterize extortion practiced by parking attendants who charge to “guard” vehicles in public spaces without authorization. The text stipulated imprisonment of two to eight years, plus a fine, with penalties enhanced for vulnerable victims.
However, after debates, the author withdrew the proposal. Even without the bill, the topic remains on the agenda due to a case in the Supreme Court discussing whether municipalities can prohibit the activity of independent parking attendants, as Porto Alegre did with Complementary Law 874/2020. The theme has been recognized with general repercussions (Theme 1406).
In practice, the debate intersects public safety, use of urban space, and right to work, with impacts on tourism, events, and commerce in large cities.
-
The noise law will no longer be in effect at 10 PM starting in June with a new rule valid during the 2026 World Cup.
-
The Chamber opens a debate on driver’s licenses at 16 years old as part of a reform that includes around 270 proposals to change the Brazilian Traffic Code and may redesign rules for licensing, enforcement, and circulation in the country.
-
The new Civil Code could revolutionize marriages in Brazil with “express divorce” and changes that could exclude spouses from inheritance.
-
Banco do Brasil sues famous influencer for million-dollar debt and intensifies debate on delinquency, risks of seizure, and direct impact on Gkay’s credibility.
What the PL 239/2025 Proposed About Punishing Parking Attendants
According to the Chamber Agency, the bill defined a crime for anyone who demands or charges a fee to guard, park, or monitor a vehicle in public spaces without authorization from the government, with a penalty of 2 to 8 years and fines. The text increased the penalty if the victim was a woman, elderly, or disabled person or was accompanied by a child or adolescent.
The proposal generated debates among supporters of stricter penalties, who saw in the text a response to coercive tactics in tourist and event areas. After the withdrawal of the bill on April 1, 2025, profiles of drivers and local pages called for the resumption of the topic, while media analyses reported that the issue divides opinions. There are also people who argue that the penalties are excessive and unnecessary.
The debate remains heated because the Supreme Court will still review Theme 1406, which could define the limits to which municipalities can restrict the activity.
The declared goal was to address situations of charging under veiled threats of damage to the vehicle, a practice reported in areas with tourist spots, beaches, stadiums, and hospitals. The proposal sought specific characterization, claiming a penal gap for this type of extortion in public roads.
It is important to highlight that it was not about regulating the profession, already recognized by federal law, but about criminalizing abusive charging without authorization. This distinction is central to understanding the legal and urban debate.
Current Situation: Withdrawal and What Changes
The official legislative process report indicates that the bill was withdrawn by the author by request approved by the Board of Directors. Thus, it is no longer on the agenda in the Chamber and will not proceed to a vote in the plenary.
Without the bill, the current penal framework remains. Acts of threat or extortion continue to be punishable under the existing types in the Penal Code, but there is no specific figure proposed for charging in public spaces. Any potential resumption of the topic would require a new legislative proposal.
For drivers and municipalities, the withdrawal does not immediately change the daily routine. Attention now turns to the Supreme Court, which will determine the limits of municipal authority to regulate or prohibit this activity.
Supreme Court, Porto Alegre, and Theme 1406
The discussion in the Supreme Court arose from a case involving Complementary Law 874/2020 of Porto Alegre, which prohibits the activity of parking attendants on the city’s streets and sets fines. The ARE 1482123 was recognized as Theme 1406 of general repercussions, meaning that the decision will guide similar cases in the country.
According to a summary released by the courts, there are specific rulings that have authorized workers to continue in the activity even with the municipal law in effect, which exposes legal uncertainty until the final judgment.
The core of the case is constitutional: does the Union have the authority to regulate professions? Or can states and municipalities restrict or prohibit activities based on use of urban space and public order? The Supreme Court will define the boundaries between these powers.
What Federal Regulations Say About Parking Attendants
The activity of self-employed parking attendants is recognized by Law 6.242/1975 and regulated by Decree 79.797/1977. The regulations address registration, links with entities, and minimum rules for exercising the occupation. They do not authorize charging without government backing in public spaces.
This scenario creates a tension: on one side, the federal recognition of the occupation; on the other, local laws that prohibit or restrict their activity on streets to protect mobility and curb abuses. Hence the relevance of Theme 1406 in the Supreme Court.
For the public authorities, the key is in formal authorization and the management of road space. For workers, the issue is legal certainty and the possibility of income under transparent criteria. The Supreme Court’s decision could standardize this understanding.
Urban Safety, Tourism, and the Debate on Criminalization
Cities with high parking demand report persistent approaches, embarrassment, and, in extreme cases, threats to drivers. Advocates of a specific penal classification view the measure as a dissuasion tool against extortionary practices in high-traffic areas.
Critics of the Bill argue that excessively high penalties could criminalize poverty and escalate conflicts, advocating for urban monitoring, regulated zones, and formal authorization as alternatives for public space management. Part of the deadlock stems from the overlap between right to work and public order, which is now judicialized.
While the Supreme Court has yet to decide, it is advised that drivers prioritize official parking lots, blue zone apps, and private parking lots near event venues, and that they report incidents in cases of threats or damage.
And you? Would the penalty of up to 8 years proposed for extortion by parking attendants be necessary to curb abuses or exaggerated to the point of punishing poverty and worsening urban conflicts? Leave your comment and let us know if you support the practice of parking attendants.
E PREFEITURAS PODEM IMPLANTAR “CAÇA NÍQUEIS” COM PAGAMENTO COMPULSÓRIO DE VAGAS PÚBLICAS FANTASIADAS COMO ESTACIONAMENTO ROTATIVO❓️🤔