The enforcement of non-fiscal extrajudicial titles is currently the biggest bottleneck in the first instance of the Brazilian justice system. In 2024, this type of process accounted for a congestion rate of 86,9% in the courts, and by April 2026 there were more than 4,3 million such cases stalled, without summons, without assets, and without resolution. These are processes that occupy staff, systems, and judges, but produce no results.

It is against this backdrop that the National Council of Justice issued Resolution 683/2026, which authorizes the termination of low-value enforcement proceedings filed by financial institutions when collection proves economically unfeasible. The rule does not cancel the debt nor close the doors of the Judiciary to the bank. It merely recognizes, methodically, that keeping a process open without any prospect of satisfaction costs more than the credit that is intended to be recovered.

For lawyers working in banking litigation, debt recovery, or debtor defense, the resolution immediately changes their routine. It's important to understand exactly what it allows, where it comes from, and where it still raises questions.

What does CNJ Resolution 683 authorize?

Extinction depends on three cumulative requirements, all provided for in Article 1. First, the value of the debt, on the date of distribution, must be less than R$ 10.000,00. Second, the debtor or assets subject to seizure cannot have been located, even after due diligence, including through Sisbajud. Third, there cannot be any pending debtor's objections or preliminary objections, and if there are, they must have been fully rejected.

The word "cumulative" is what organizes the reading. If a requirement is missing, there is no extinction. A title of R$ 9.500,00 with pledged assets does not qualify. A title of R$ 12.000,00 without assets does not qualify either.

The rule also imposes a preliminary filter that protects the plaintiff. Before dismissing the case, the court notifies the creditor to, within 15 days, prove the location of the debtor or assets, demonstrate a supervening fact that justifies the continuation of the proceedings, or show that the title does not fit the parameters. Only after this specific adversarial process can the dismissal be decreed.

The legacy of Resolution 547 and Topic 1.184 of the STF (Supreme Federal Court).

The elimination of low-value enforcement actions is not a new phenomenon. It originates from tax enforcement and will extend to private credit in 2026.

The landmark ruling is Supreme Court Case 1.184 , decided in Extraordinary Appeal 1.355.208, which established the legitimacy of dismissing low-value tax enforcement proceedings due to lack of standing, in accordance with the constitutional principle of administrative efficiency. Based on this ruling, the National Council of Justice (CNJ) issued Resolution 547/2024, which structured the screening of uneconomical tax enforcement proceedings and required the debt to be protested before legal action is initiated.

The practical result was significant. In less than two years, the backlog of pending tax enforcement cases fell by 26,4%, equivalent to more than ten million cases closed. Resolution 683/2026 applies this same engineering to low-value bank loans, with one difference that lawyers need to understand: this is not about unavailable tax credits, but about private credit, which the financial institution can freely dispose of.

The official text is available on the CNJ's acts portal , and the proposal was processed as Normative Act 0003173-51.2026.2.00.0000, under the rapporteurship of Minister Edson Fachin, president of the CNJ and the STF.

Why doesn't extinction erase the debt?

This is the point that generates the most confusion outside of technical circles, and which the lawyer needs to explain to the client precisely.

The termination authorized by the resolution is without resolution of the merits, based on article 485, VI, of the Code of Civil Procedure. This means that the judge does not declare that the debt does not exist. He only terminates that specific process due to the absence of immediate practical utility. The title remains valid, certain, liquid, and enforceable.

Two consequences follow from this. 

The first point is that the bank can file a new enforcement action, provided the statute of limitations is respected. The termination of the case closes the process, not the debt. 

The second point is that, in the absence of objections or preliminary objections, or when these are entirely rejected, the plaintiff is not ordered to pay attorney's fees. 

The resolution is expressed at this point, and the reasoning is consistent, so the creditor is not punished for a termination determined ex officio in favor of streamlining the system.

For those defending the debtor, a warning: the closure of the process does not constitute settlement. It is advisable to advise the client that the debt may be collected again, judicially or extrajudicially, as long as the statute of limitations has not expired.

The obligation to identify the defendant: CPF and CNPJ in the initial filing.

Article 2 of the resolution establishes a requirement that may seem bureaucratic, but has a direct procedural effect. The initial petition for enforcement proceedings filed by a financial institution must contain the CPF (Brazilian individual taxpayer registration number) or CNPJ (Brazilian corporate taxpayer registration number) of the defendant. The absence of this information leads to the dismissal of the initial petition.

In ongoing proceedings, the court summons the plaintiff to, within 15 days, supplement the identification or demonstrate the impossibility of obtaining the information. This measure is consistent with Article 319, II, of the CPC (Code of Civil Procedure), which has always required the identification of the parties, and replicates a solution that Resolution 617/2025 had already adopted for tax enforcement.

What changes in the routine of someone litigating in enforcement proceedings?

The resolution reorganizes incentives, and the lawyer who realizes this first has an advantage.

For the financial institution and its legal representatives, the 15-day deadline to respond to the preliminary summons is no longer a mere formality. It is the last window of opportunity to salvage the execution, and it demands a concrete response: indication of assets, a supervening fact, or demonstration that the case does not qualify. A generic response does not justify proceeding. This reinforces the importance of well-documented asset searches, the timely use of Sisbajud (the Brazilian judicial asset search system), and the recording of each unsuccessful attempt to locate assets.

For those defending the debtor, the interpretation is reversed. Filing objections or raising a preliminary objection can, paradoxically, remove the case from the automatic dismissal scenario, since the rule only waives fees when there is no defense or when it is entirely rejected. The defense strategy needs to consider this effect, and not trigger the machinery by reflex.

There is also an underlying movement. The resolution opens up space for financial institutions to establish partnerships with the CNJ (National Council of Justice) aimed at the extrajudicial resolution of these debt collections, regardless of the amount. The trend is clear: small, defaulted debts are migrating from the judicial process to extrajudicial collection and consensual solutions. Those working in debt recovery will increasingly have to operate outside the courts.

The postgraduate program in Civil Procedural Law at IDP

Resolution 683 exposes an uncomfortable truth. Enforcement has ceased to be the mechanical part of the process and has become the arena where it is actually decided whether or not the recognized right becomes satisfaction. Case management, statute of limitations, enforcement measures, extrajudicial resolutions, and credit management are topics that demand a systematic understanding of enforcement procedures, not a haphazard reading of resolutions.

The IDP's postgraduate program in Civil Procedural Law is structured for this professional. The program covers the theory of precedents and the binding force of decisions from higher courts, executive protection and enforcement of judgments, appeals and proceedings in higher courts, and procedural legal transactions.

The faculty includes names such as Professor Gisele Welsch, PhD in Law and a national reference in civil procedure, and Minister Gilmar Mendes, founder of IDP and one of the protagonists of contemporary Brazilian constitutionalism.

The classes are 100% online and live, held every two weeks. For lawyers working in litigation and debt recovery, mastering the logic of enforcement proceedings now, while case law on Resolution 683 is still being formed, is the difference between keeping up with the change and being caught by it.

Manassés Lopes da Silva is a business lawyer and university professor. He holds a Master's degree in Law from IDP São Paulo, a specialization in Civil Procedural Law from IDP, and an LLM in Processes and Appeals in Superior Courts. He is a member of IRTS — the Institute of Appeals in Superior Courts. Email: contato@manasseslopes.com