The creditor obtained a judgment, it became final, enforcement proceedings were initiated, and the systems SISBAJUD, RENAJUD, and INFOJUD were activated, but nothing happened. 

The debtor has no attachable assets, at least not officially, but frequents expensive restaurants, travels abroad, and maintains a standard of living incompatible with the insolvency he claims to have. 

Before the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, the process would reach a virtually inescapable impasse. Now, with Article 139, IV, this scenario has gained a normative response that is still being constructed by case law.

Atypical enforcement measures are those not expressly provided for by law, which the judge may determine based on the general clause of effectiveness of enforcement. 

The confirmed constitutionality and its limits.

The first major institutional milestone on the subject was the Supreme Federal Court's ruling on ADI 5.941 in February 2023. 

The lawsuit questioned the constitutionality of four specific atypical measures: seizure of driver's license, seizure of passport, prohibition from participating in public competitions, and prohibition from participating in bidding processes. 

The Court declared them constitutional, with a reservation, namely, that their application must observe the principles of proportionality and reasonableness, respect the dignity of the human person, and be analyzed on a case-by-case basis. 

Justice Luiz Fux, the rapporteur, went straight to the point when he stated that it is inconceivable that the Judiciary, intended for the resolution of disputes, should not have the prerogative to enforce its judgments.

The Supreme Federal Court's decision, however, was limited to proclaiming the constitutionality of the provision. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) was left with the more complex task: to define, on a case-by-case basis and later in repetitive proceedings, the specific requirements for the application of these measures. 

The trajectory of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ): ten years building the criteria.

The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) first addressed the issue in June 2018, in Habeas Corpus Appeal No. 97.876, which discussed the seizure of passports. 

The Fourth Panel acknowledged that habeas corpus was the appropriate instrument to challenge the measure, but denied the order due to a lack of adequate justification in the decision that had granted it.

The precedent set, however, was important, considering that atypical measures are possible, but require a reasoned decision, observance of due process, and demonstration of suitability to the specific case.

In 2019, REsp 1.782.418/RJ consolidated the requirements that doctrine had already pointed out and that jurisprudence began to reproduce: (i) the need to exhaust typical means of satisfying the debt, (ii) observance of due process of law, (iii) a reasoned decision, (iv) the absence of indication of assets for seizure and (v) evidence of asset concealment. 

The five elements mentioned above formed the backbone of the applicable regime and guided subsequent judgments.

In AREsp 1.495.012/SP, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) rejected the use of atypical measures as procedural punishment. In the reasoning of the judgment, the STJ mentioned that the measure is not a sanction for non-compliance; it is a coercive instrument aimed at satisfying the debt. When distorted to function as a punishment for the debtor, without real potential to induce payment, it loses its legitimacy. 

In 2022, HC 711.194/SP raised the issue of the duration of coercive measures. The case divided the panel. 

The rapporteur, Minister Marco Aurélio Bellizze, voted in favor of granting the habeas corpus , arguing that measures for an indefinite period without plausible justification become a form of punishment without real coercive effect.

The dissenting opinion, initiated by Minister Nancy Andrighi, prevailed with the understanding that the measures should be maintained as long as they are able to exert sufficient restrictions to remove the debtor from their comfort zone, especially when they maintain a lifestyle financed at the expense of creditors. 

The decision signals that the duration of the measure is tied to its coercive effectiveness, and not to a fixed, predefined deadline.

Relevance in consumer relations

One of the most promising angles for the use of atypical measures is that of consumer relations, and it is also where the issue of subsidiarity takes on more delicate contours. 

Consumers litigating against large telecommunications companies, construction firms, or financial institutions face a structural asymmetry that typical enforcement methods rarely manage to neutralize. 

Suppliers who are habitual litigants develop sophisticated asset protection strategies: Special Purpose Entities (SPEs) created for each real estate project without their own assets, economic groups with formal separation between companies, and accounts with no traceable balance in judicial search systems.

The CDC expressly recognizes consumer vulnerability as a guiding principle of the protective system, and procedural disadvantage as a basis for differentiated treatment within the process. 

Some argue, with reasonable doctrinal basis, that this asymmetry justifies the primary application of atypical measures in consumer enforcement proceedings, dispensing with the prior demonstration of exhaustion of typical means when there is solid evidence that such exhaustion will be futile. 

In these cases, the principle of subsidiarity would be replaced by a qualified presumption of ineffectiveness of ordinary means, built upon the debtor's repeated procedural conduct.

This debate is not yet resolved, so what is clear is that the consumer lawyer who does not know how to handle the request for atypical measures with the correct requirements, and the supplier lawyer who does not know how to build a defense against them, will be at a considerable disadvantage.

Topic 1.137 of the STJ

The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has assigned Topic 1.137 to the repetitive appeals procedure, with Special Appeals 1.955.539/SP and 1.955.574/SP being selected as representative of the controversy.

The central question was whether it is possible for a judge to adopt atypical enforcement measures to ensure compliance with an unfulfilled obligation, and what criteria should be observed in doing so. 

The trial was concluded by the Second Section on December 4, 2025, unanimously, under the reporting of Minister Marco Buzzi. 

The established thesis establishes that, in civil executions exclusively governed by the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure), the adoption of atypical enforcement measures is permissible provided that, cumulatively: (i) the principles of effectiveness and least onerousness to the debtor are weighed; (ii) the measure is adopted primarily as a subsidiary measure; (iii) the decision contains reasoning adequate to the specifics of the case; and (iv) the principles of due process, proportionality, and reasonableness are observed, including regarding the temporal validity of the measure.

Minister Maria Isabel Gallotti agreed with the rapporteur on the outcome, but noted reservations regarding the wording of the thesis, considering that the approved criteria are excessively broad and that the suppression of a more objective requirement (related to the existence of evidence of expropriable assets) may reduce the STJ's own ability to control the scope of the precedent, especially since, after the establishment of the repetitive thesis, the Court tends not to receive individual appeals on the subject anymore.

This thesis is mandatory throughout the national territory.

The precedent consolidates the jurisprudential trajectory that had been developing in the Private Law Chambers and reaffirms subsidiarity as the rule, the requirement for specific justification, and the prohibition of using the measures as a punitive instrument. 

What remains open (and tends to generate new controversies) is the degree of concreteness required in judicial reasoning for specific situations, such as consumer enforcement proceedings, enforcement proceedings against habitual litigants, and cases in which the debtor demonstrates assets in a foreign jurisdiction.

Moreover, the issue raised by Minister Gallotti is of utmost importance. 

Is mere non-payment sufficient, or is it necessary to demonstrate concrete evidence of the debtor's financial capacity to justify measures such as the seizure of their driver's license and passport? 

The caveat recorded in the judgment indicates that this tension is not resolved and may reappear in contexts where the generic parameters of the thesis prove insufficient to contain excesses.

Why does this require specialized training?

Civil enforcement is probably the area of ​​procedure where the gap between the text of the law and forensic practice is greatest. 

Article 139, IV, is an open clause: it authorizes the judge to adopt necessary measures without listing them. This means that the lawyer needs to know the STJ's jurisprudence with sufficient precision to request the right measure, justify it with the correct requirements, anticipate the opposing party's objections, and know when the request is premature and could compromise the enforcement strategy.

This domain requires an understanding of the constitutional foundations of enforcement proceedings, a systematic knowledge of the precedents of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), and the ability to apply these precedents to the specific circumstances of each case.

The postgraduate program in Civil Procedural Law at IDP was structured to develop precisely this type of competence. 

The program covers the structure and principles of civil procedure, the dynamics of procedural phases, the enforcement of judgments, executive proceedings, means of challenging decisions, and the strategic application of precedents from higher courts. 

The faculty includes advisors to Ministers of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), federal judges, prosecutors, and lawyers with direct involvement in the issues covered by the program, among them Professor Gisele Welsch, PhD in Law and a national reference in civil procedure.

The classes are 100% online and live, held every two weeks.

For those working in civil enforcement, judgment enforcement, or civil litigation in general, mastering atypical enforcement measures is no longer a technical advantage but has become part of the basic repertoire for anyone who wants to work competently with enforcement.