Background
Marcos Antônio Vieira da Cunha brought an ordinary civil action against CEBRASPE and the Federal Government seeking to annul his disqualification from the psychological-evaluation stage of the 2021 federal highway-police (Policial Rodoviário Federal) competitive examination. He argued that the assessment lacked the objective, transparent criteria required by settled constitutional jurisprudence and asked the court to order a new evaluation and allow him to continue to subsequent stages of the selection process. A provisional injunction was granted, and the trial court ultimately ruled in his favour, confirming the injunction, ordering a fresh psychological test, and, upon his passing that retake, directing his appointment and sworn-in installation in the position subject to ranking order. The court also awarded attorney’s fees at ten percent of the value of the claim.
On appeal, the Federal Regional Court of the First Region (TRF-1) partially upheld the lower judgment: it preserved the candidate’s right to continue in the examination and, following his court-ordered retake which he passed, maintained the direction for his appointment. However, the appellate court reversed the attorney’s-fee award under the causation principle. Crucially for the present proceedings, TRF-1 also endorsed a cause-of-action value equivalent to twelve months of the salary attached to the contested position — reasoning that even a suit challenging only one examination phase carries an identifiable economic parameter — the annual remuneration of the target post — under Article 292, § 2° of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
CEBRASPE filed a special appeal (recurso especial) to the STJ contending, among other things, that the lower court misapplied Articles 291 and 292, § 2° of the CPC. The organization argued that the action sought only a declaration of nullity of a single examination stage and an obligation to conduct a new test — a non-monetary obligation — and therefore produced no immediate economic benefit to the plaintiff. Consequentially, the standard salary-based formula for fixing the amount in controversy should not apply. CEBRASPE noted that TRF-1 had itself previously held, in other cases, that suits contesting a candidate’s failure in a public exam carry no immediate economic claim and that the originally assigned nominal value is legitimate for procedural-fee purposes.
The Court’s Holding
The Primeira Seção of the STJ, voting unanimously on the report of Justice Sérgio Kukina, designated REsp 2252900 as a leading case (recurso representativo da controvérsia) under the repetitive-appeals mechanism provided by Articles 1.036–1.038 of the CPC and Article 257-C of the STJ’s Internal Rules. The court defined the disputed legal question as: “Whether, in actions that challenge only the regularity of a stage of a public competitive examination, with no immediate economic benefit, the criterion of Article 292, § 2°, of the CPC does or does not apply for fixing the amount in controversy.” At this stage the court has not yet resolved that question on the merits; it has formally framed it and set the machinery of the binding-precedent procedure in motion.
As a direct consequence of the affectation ruling, the STJ simultaneously ordered the suspension of all special appeals and interlocutory appeals from special appeals — whether pending before second-instance courts or already lodged at the STJ — that involve the same question. This stay will remain in effect while the court deliberates and issues a binding thesis. The decision further directed that the Federal Public Ministry (Ministério Público Federal) be given fifteen days to file an opinion, and that the case be scheduled for oral argument and final judgment by the full Primeira Seção.
The designation was supported by statistical evidence of the question’s systemic importance: TRF-1’s case-management unit had identified 201 judicial proceedings directly involving the same controversy, of which 27 were selected as representative for the group submission that prompted the STJ referral. The court found the criteria of multiplicity, relevance, and reach plainly satisfied.
Key Takeaways
- The STJ has formally accepted the question of how to calculate the amount in controversy in suits that contest only a single public-exam stage — without any immediate salary or appointment claim — as a binding repetitive-appeal theme, meaning its forthcoming answer will bind all lower courts nationwide.
- All pending special appeals raising this valuation question are now stayed, regardless of whether they are at the intermediate appellate level or already before the STJ, until the leading-case judgment is handed down.
- The underlying substantive dispute — CEBRASPE’s challenge to a court-ordered retake of a psychological evaluation — remains pending; the affectation ruling addresses only the procedural question of cause-of-action valuation and does not decide the psychological-exam merits.
- Article 292, § 2° of the CPC provides that when a lawsuit seeks a public-employee benefit, the amount in controversy is calculated as twelve times the monthly remuneration of the position; the core unresolved issue is whether that formula can be applied when the suit targets only a preliminary selection stage and appointment is not yet assured.
Why It Matters
Public competitive examinations in Brazil generate thousands of lawsuits each year, and the monetary threshold for calculating court costs, attorney’s fees, and appeal admissibility often turns on the assigned amount in controversy. If the STJ ultimately rules that the annual-salary benchmark of Article 292, § 2° applies even to actions that challenge only one intermediate exam stage, litigation costs and fee awards in this category of cases will rise significantly. Conversely, a ruling that such suits carry no immediate economic content would align with the view that the salary formula is triggered only when actual remuneration is directly at stake, lowering barriers for aggrieved candidates and reducing financial exposure for examining bodies and public authorities.
The decision to proceed by the repetitive-appeals route means the eventual binding thesis will create uniform, nationwide case law on a question that has produced divergent outcomes across Brazil’s regional federal and state courts. The 201 cases already identified at TRF-1 alone signal the volume of proceedings that will be directly resolved once the STJ issues its final ruling, making this one of the more consequential procedural-law developments for Brazilian public-service law in the near term.