Background
Carrefour Comércio e Indústria Ltda. brought an annulment action against PROCON/SP concerning an administrative infraction debt. While the litigation was pending, Carrefour entered an administrative installment agreement covering several debts, including the one challenged in the action, and relinquished its right to contest that debt judicially. The trial court approved the relinquishment, terminated the case on the merits, and ordered Carrefour to pay prevailing-party attorney’s fees.
The São Paulo Court of Justice affirmed. It concluded that the fees associated with the administrative settlement and related tax enforcement proceeding did not cover the separate fees arising from the annulment action. Carrefour sought special review, arguing among other things that the appellate court had inadequately addressed the settlement’s legal nature and terms, and that imposing additional fees amounted to double recovery.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Tribunal de Justiça unanimously entertained the interlocutory appeal, considered the special appeal only in part, and denied relief to that extent. It held that the state appellate court had provided sufficient reasons under Articles 489 and 1,022 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A court need not answer every argument individually when its reasoning adequately resolves the dispute.
The STJ upheld the fees under Article 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the causation principle. Fees generated by the annulment action were autonomous from the principal debt and from fees covered by the settlement in the tax enforcement proceeding. STJ Theme 400 did not apply because it concerns federal tax executions carrying the statutory charge imposed by Decree-Law No. 1,025/1969, unlike this case.
The court also determined that removing the award would require reconsidering evidence, the settlement’s scope, and São Paulo law, which is impermissible on special appeal under STJ Súmula 7 and, by analogy, STF Súmula 280. The challenged judgment accorded with STJ precedent, triggering STJ Súmula 83, and the asserted conflict in precedent was therefore not independently reviewable. The STJ increased the previously awarded fees by 10%, subject to the statutory limits.
Key Takeaways
- An administrative settlement of the principal debt does not automatically eliminate attorney’s fees arising independently from a related annulment action.
- A party that relinquishes its claim to join a payment program may remain responsible for fees under Article 90 unless the governing legislation expressly provides an exemption.
- STJ Theme 400 is limited to the federal tax-enforcement context involving the charge under Decree-Law No. 1,025/1969.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that settling or restructuring a Brazilian public-law debt may not resolve every litigation cost associated with parallel proceedings. Parties should determine whether the settlement instrument and governing legislation expressly address fees in each related action.
It also illustrates the narrow scope of special-appeal review: the STJ will not reinterpret local law or revisit evidence concerning what a settlement covered, and sufficiently reasoned treatment of the decisive issues will withstand a procedural challenge even if every contention was not discussed separately.