STJ establishes understanding on application of SELIC rate as sole index for default interest, including for obligations constituted before the entry into force of Law No. 14,905/2024

In a recent judgment of Special Appeal No. 2,059,743, the Fourth Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”) reaffirmed the understanding previously adopted in Special Appeal No. 1,795,982, and established the guideline that the Brazilian base interest rate index (“SELIC”) should be applied as the sole criterion for the incidence of default interest and adjustment for inflation, whenever the court order does not expressly stipulate another index.

The Court also reinforced the prohibition on cumulating Selic with any other monetary correction index.

In the decision, Reporting Justice Antonio Carlos Ferreira highlighted that SELIC, due to its hybrid nature, already includes both default interest and monetary adjustment, which makes it impossible to apply it jointly with other indexes, such as IPCA-E or the rate of 1% per month.

The Reporting Justice also clarified that this understanding should also be applied to obligations established before the entry into force of Law No. 14,905/2024, which expressly provided for the application of the Selic rate in such cases, due to the declaratory nature of this law, which adopted an interpretation already given to the matter by the STJ. In the specific case analyzed in Special Appeal No. 2,059,743, the judgment had determined the application of different periods for the incidence of monetary correction and interest on arrears — with monetary correction being due from the date of the final judgment and interest on arrears from the date of service of the case. In view of this, the Reporting Justice considered that the full application of the SELIC rate between the date of service of the case and the final judgment would result in an undue cumulation of charges, contrary to the consolidated understanding. Therefore, as provided for in Law No. 14,905/2024, the SELIC rate should be applied separately whenever there is cumulation of charges. Conversely, in the absence of cumulation, the SELIC rate may be applied in the period corresponding to the interest, excluding other indexes, such as the IPCA.

The decision reinforces the STJ’s case law in order to prevent the creditor from becoming unjustly enriched and to promote legal certainty in the judgment settlement phase. The understanding has a direct impact on the way in which judicial debts are calculated and must be observed in enforcement and judgment enforcement proceedings.

Demarest’s Dispute Resolution and Insurance, Reinsurance, Health and Private Pension teams are monitoring the developments of the decision and are available to provide any additional clarifications that may be necessary.