Post by account_disabled on Jan 23, 2024 11:23:24 GMT
Repetitive Special Appeal 951.894/DF was recently included on the agenda for judgment by the Special Court of the STJ, initially scheduled for September 20, 2017. Despite the trial having been postponed, the imminence of the STJ to continue with the analysis and judgment of the appeal instigates understanding of the issue sub judice . Said appeal was affected in 2015, to be processed according to the rite of articles 1,036 and following of the CPC/2015, with the objective of analyzing the legality, in abstract, of the use of the Price table, in view of the prohibition of interest capitalization in a lower interval to the annual amount expressed in article 4 of Decree 22,626/1933 (Usury Law).
REsp 951.894/DF is the fifth repetitive Buy Phone Number List special appeal to be judged by the STJ, on the subject of interest capitalization in banking contracts. For this reason, to understand the adequacy or otherwise of the intended analysis of the affected legal issue, it is necessary to briefly review the previous decisions handed down by the STJ. The issue of prohibiting the capitalization of interest in bank contracts is not new. The first judgments on the matter date back to the 1950s, a period in which the contractual protections established by the Consumer Protection and Defense Code (CDC) did not yet exist.
Even in the period of the classical theory of contracts, adopted in the Civil Code of 1916, the Federal Supreme Court recognized that the capitalization of interest was prohibited, even if expressly agreed, as stated in Summary 121/STF. To prohibit the capitalization of interest even when contracted, in a period in which the principles of contractual freedom and pacta sunt servanda were fully in force, the STF recognized that the prohibition of interest capitalization, by article 4 of the Usury Law (Decree -law 22,626/33), was a matter of public order and mandatory in nature, which could not be derogated from by contractual clauses.
REsp 951.894/DF is the fifth repetitive Buy Phone Number List special appeal to be judged by the STJ, on the subject of interest capitalization in banking contracts. For this reason, to understand the adequacy or otherwise of the intended analysis of the affected legal issue, it is necessary to briefly review the previous decisions handed down by the STJ. The issue of prohibiting the capitalization of interest in bank contracts is not new. The first judgments on the matter date back to the 1950s, a period in which the contractual protections established by the Consumer Protection and Defense Code (CDC) did not yet exist.
Even in the period of the classical theory of contracts, adopted in the Civil Code of 1916, the Federal Supreme Court recognized that the capitalization of interest was prohibited, even if expressly agreed, as stated in Summary 121/STF. To prohibit the capitalization of interest even when contracted, in a period in which the principles of contractual freedom and pacta sunt servanda were fully in force, the STF recognized that the prohibition of interest capitalization, by article 4 of the Usury Law (Decree -law 22,626/33), was a matter of public order and mandatory in nature, which could not be derogated from by contractual clauses.