Post by account_disabled on Mar 7, 2024 5:47:46 GMT
Included this Wednesday in the agenda of the nd Section of the Superior Court of Justice STJ the judgment of two repetitive special appeals that deal with the charging of compound interest by banks was suspended after a brief and intense debate among ministers. After the rapporteur minister Luis Felipe Salomão cast his vote for the admissibility of the charge and was accompanied by minister Nancy Andrighi minister Maria Isabel Gallotti asked for a review of the process.
The trial interrupted this Wednesday afternoon refers to Special Appeals RS and RS voted under the rite of repetitive appeals which involve the socalled anatocism that is the capitalization of interest or the charging of interest on fees. As the two appeals dealt with identical cases the rapporteur chose to judge under the procedure only number from the Sudameris bank whose decision will apply to all others. REsp RS is from ABN Amro Bank formerly Banco Real purchased by Banco Santander.
In both cases the defendants are bank customers of both institutions. The second degree court had decided that it was impossible to capitalize via compound interest.
The applicants had the help of the Central Bank Bacen and BTC Number Data the Brazilian Federation of Banks Febraban admitted as amici curiae in the trial. The Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection Idec acted as amicus curiae in favor of bank customers. Only the Central Bank had a representative who took the floor to give oral arguments.
When asking for a view minister Maria Isabel Gallotti promised to bring her vote in the next session. According to Minister Luis Felipe Salomão requests for review in trials under the rite of repetitive appeals are uncommon precisely because they deal with understandings already established by the court's jurisprudence. The STJ's repeated jurisprudence recognizes that anatocism is permitted for contracts made after the issuance of Provisional Measure and if expressly agreed upon between the parties.
According to the rapporteur this Wednesday's discussion did not refer to the merits of the matter but to the doubt about “the concept of express capitalization agreement” between financial institution and client. For the minister capitalization is due “when the agreement is expressed”. “There are thousands of cases that are detained at the originating court awaiting this judgment” said Salomão.
According to client representation the capitalization of interest is prohibited by article of the Civil Code which only allows capitalization for periods longer than one year and came into force in after Provisional Measure which authorized collection in shorter periods. They also claim that the charging forecast is linked to a provisional measure that dealt with other matters which results in noncompliance with Complementary Law which provides for the drafting of laws. According to the defendants there were no criteria of urgency and relevance that would justify the issuance of Provisional Measure
The trial interrupted this Wednesday afternoon refers to Special Appeals RS and RS voted under the rite of repetitive appeals which involve the socalled anatocism that is the capitalization of interest or the charging of interest on fees. As the two appeals dealt with identical cases the rapporteur chose to judge under the procedure only number from the Sudameris bank whose decision will apply to all others. REsp RS is from ABN Amro Bank formerly Banco Real purchased by Banco Santander.
In both cases the defendants are bank customers of both institutions. The second degree court had decided that it was impossible to capitalize via compound interest.
The applicants had the help of the Central Bank Bacen and BTC Number Data the Brazilian Federation of Banks Febraban admitted as amici curiae in the trial. The Brazilian Institute for Consumer Protection Idec acted as amicus curiae in favor of bank customers. Only the Central Bank had a representative who took the floor to give oral arguments.
When asking for a view minister Maria Isabel Gallotti promised to bring her vote in the next session. According to Minister Luis Felipe Salomão requests for review in trials under the rite of repetitive appeals are uncommon precisely because they deal with understandings already established by the court's jurisprudence. The STJ's repeated jurisprudence recognizes that anatocism is permitted for contracts made after the issuance of Provisional Measure and if expressly agreed upon between the parties.
According to the rapporteur this Wednesday's discussion did not refer to the merits of the matter but to the doubt about “the concept of express capitalization agreement” between financial institution and client. For the minister capitalization is due “when the agreement is expressed”. “There are thousands of cases that are detained at the originating court awaiting this judgment” said Salomão.
According to client representation the capitalization of interest is prohibited by article of the Civil Code which only allows capitalization for periods longer than one year and came into force in after Provisional Measure which authorized collection in shorter periods. They also claim that the charging forecast is linked to a provisional measure that dealt with other matters which results in noncompliance with Complementary Law which provides for the drafting of laws. According to the defendants there were no criteria of urgency and relevance that would justify the issuance of Provisional Measure