Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
2 comments 
Preliminary Ruling by the STF Restores Full Eight-Year Deadline in Cases of Improbity and Removes Risk of Prescription for Over 8,000 Cases Nationwide.
The STF suspended the rule that reduced the prescription period by half after interruptive causes in improbity actions, preventing it from dropping from eight to four years. The measure, granted as a preliminary injunction in ADI 7.236, has immediate effect and is valid until the final judgment by the Plenary.
In practice, the Court avoided a mass prescription of cases that are being processed in Brazil. Based on information presented to the STF, maintaining the provision could lead to the premature dismissal of over 8,000 actions as early as October 2025. By keeping the eight-year deadline, the Court preserves the effectiveness of jurisdictional protection and the fight against corruption in the civil sphere.
What Was Decided and Why It Matters
The injunction by Minister Alexandre de Moraes, ad referendum of the Plenary of the STF, suspended the expression that mandated the resumption “by half” of the deadline after the interruption.
-
The Senate approves a bill that criminalizes misogyny, hatred, or aversion towards women, and includes the crime in the Racism Law with a penalty of up to 5 years.
-
Chamber Approves Bill That Allows Pepper Spray for Women Over 16 and Imposes Strict Rules for Purchase, Possession, and Use as Self-Defense
-
Chamber Approves Law to Combat Leucaena, Fast-Growing Plant That Dominates Land and Threatens Native Species in Various Regions of the Country
-
Asset Division: Know What Cannot Be Divided in Case of Divorce
In simple terms, each interruptive cause will reopen the full eight-year deadline, not just four.
According to the rapporteur, reducing the improbity deadline by half weakened the accountability system, especially in complex cases that require extensive evidence production and multiple levels of review.
“It is unrealistic to conclude cases of this magnitude in four years”, he noted while justifying the urgency of the measure.
Risk of Prescription: Where It Would Arise
From the data presented to the STF by Public Prosecutors, the application of §5 (reduction by half) could prescribe thousands of ongoing actions: surveys cite 1,889 cases in São Paulo, 3,188 in Minas Gerais, 1,022 in Rio Grande do Sul, and 1,966 in Rio de Janeiro.
In all scenarios, the shortened timeframe would impact crucial stages.
Three operational points were highlighted: between filing and first-instance judgment (average over four years), between proposal and second-degree decision when there is dismissal (which does not interrupt the counting), and between conviction and review in appellate instances.
In each of these phases, the cut to four years would increase the risk of intercursive prescription.
Coherence with Other Legal Regimes and International Commitments
The STF emphasized that, in other branches of law, the interruption of prescription restarts the deadline completely (as in the Civil Code and the Penal Code).
Harmonizing improbity with this logic avoids distortions and offers procedural predictability.
In addition to internal alignment, the Court considered Brazil’s international commitments regarding anticorruption.
UN and OECD conventions recommend reasonable deadlines and suspension/interruption mechanisms to prevent impunity due to procedural delays.
Reducing the deadline to four years after the interruption would go against these guidelines.
Position of the Public Ministry and the Role of the STF
The Attorney General’s Office warned that the halving, combined with the limited interruption, would increase the likelihood of acquittal decisions becoming unappealable due to the passage of time, compromising review by courts.
For the STF, this would constitute setback in the microsystem to combat corruption.
At the same time, the Court maintained institutional self-restraint: the injunction is surgical, focuses on the prescription deadline, and preserves the overall structure of Law 8.429 with the amendments of Law 14.230/2021, until the Plenary concludes the merit analysis of ADI 7.236.
In other words, there is no broad revocation, but rather immediate protection against premature prescription.
Immediate Scope: Who Is Affected, Where, and When
With the decision, all ongoing improbity actions in the country continue under the eight-year deadline even after interruptive causes.
The effect is national and immediate, valid until the final deliberation of the Plenary of the STF.
The injunction also restores legal certainty for prosecutors, judges, and oversight bodies, who were already working with structured deadlines for evidentiary instruction, hearings, expert evaluations, and judgments in multiple instances.
“Procedural timelines cannot fit into four-year shortcuts without sacrificing the quality of evidence”, the rapporteur noted.
What Will Still Be Judged in ADI 7.236
The action proposed by the CONAMP questions more than 30 points of the reform of improbity, such as the exclusion of parties from the scope of the law, linking the loss of function to the position held, and the effects of criminal acquittal in the civil sphere.
The Plenary has already begun examining the merits and will still need to consolidate the understanding on these topics.
Until then, the message from the STF is clear: the protection of public assets requires deadlines compatible with the complexity of cases.
Ensuring eight years after interruptions is not a privilege of the prosecution; it is a minimum condition of effectiveness of the system.
The STF’s injunction avoids a procedural blackout and maintains eight years as a reference for prescription in improbity, protecting thousands of actions from prematurely prescribing.
For managers, public servants and political agents, the message is one of accountability with due process; for society, of continuity of oversight.
Now we want to hear from those following closely: in your view, does maintaining the full deadline better balance defense and the fight against corruption? Do you see risks of delay or more legal certainty with the decision? Share your experience — technical opinions and accounts from those working in the field help qualify the debate.
Espero que no futuro não diminuam o prazo quando os que hoje administram estiverem sendo processados e não só os da administração passada…
entrega a chave do Planalto logo pro Xandão! A gente quer defender o Estafo democrático de Direito, mas fica difícil assim!!! Quem legisla é o poder Legislativo, é assim que tem que ser.