Background
Douglas Mendes Trindade sat the 2021 Federal Highway Police (PRF) competitive examination (Edital n. 1/2021) and was declared unfit at the psychological-assessment stage. He sued CEBRASPE (the examining body) and the Union, seeking annulment of that assessment on the ground that the psychotechnical test employed a secret profesiographic profile rather than objective, publicly disclosed criteria, and demanding the right to sit a fresh test and continue in the competition. The First Federal Regional Court (TRF-1) issued an interlocutory ruling allowing him to retake the test; after a full trial the district court dismissed his claims on the merits but, acting on CEBRASPE’s challenge, reduced the stated claim value to R$ 10,000. On appeal TRF-1 reversed on both points: it annulled the elimination, ordered the candidate’s progression through the remaining stages, and reinstated the original claim value of R$ 118,798.56 — equivalent to the salary of the post — on the theory that appointment and salary were the ultimate economic benefit sought. Attorney’s fees were set at 10% of that higher figure. CEBRASPE then brought the present special appeal to the STJ, arguing that because the lawsuit challenged only one phase of the competition without any immediate economic gain (approval in the psychological test does not guarantee final selection or appointment), the lower salary-based value was improper and Article 292, § 2º of the Code of Civil Procedure should not apply.
Article 292, § 2º of the CPC requires that where a case involves an obligation whose economic content is determinable, the claim value must reflect that content. The central dispute is whether an action targeting the regularity of a single examination phase — where the candidate must still pass further stages before any salary right can arise — carries an “immediate economic benefit” that triggers this rule, or whether such suits are non-economic in nature and may be assigned a nominal value for fiscal purposes only.
The STJ’s Presidência da Comissão Gestora de Precedentes identified 201 substantially identical cases within TRF-1 alone, with 27 selected as representative. The Federal Public Ministry (MPF) supported formal designation of the issue under the repetitive-appeals procedure, confirming both the widespread controversy and the need for a binding precedent.
The Court’s Holding
The First Section, sitting unanimously, accepted the case as a representative leading case under the repetitive-appeals mechanism (recursos repetitivos) established by Articles 1.036 et seq. of the CPC and Article 257-C of the STJ’s Internal Rules (RISTJ). The court formally delimited the disputed legal question as: “To determine whether, in actions that discuss only the regularity of a phase of a public competitive examination, without immediate economic benefit, the criterion of Article 292, § 2º of the CPC applies or does not apply to the fixing of the claim value.”
Pursuant to Article 1.037, II of the CPC, the Section simultaneously ordered the suspension of all special appeals and interlocutory appeals in special appeals — whether pending before second-instance courts or already before the STJ — that concern the same issue, pending resolution of the leading case. The court also directed that the case file be forwarded to the MPF for a further opinion within fifteen days, after which it will be placed on the plenary docket for a final ruling on the merits of the legal question.
The Section did not resolve the underlying substantive question at this stage. The decision is a procedural designation: it locks in the issue to be decided, freezes parallel litigation nationwide, and sets the machinery for a binding ruling (tese repetitiva) that will govern all similarly situated cases once the merits are decided.
Key Takeaways
- The STJ has formally opened a repetitive-appeals proceeding (Tema Repetitivo) to decide whether the salary-based claim-valuation rule of Article 292, § 2º CPC applies to lawsuits that contest only one phase of a public competitive examination, where appointment and pay are contingent on passing subsequent stages.
- All special appeals and related interlocutory appeals nationwide touching this question are now suspended until the STJ issues its binding ruling.
- The underlying dispute arose from TRF-1 setting attorney’s fees at 10% of a R$ 118,798.56 salary-equivalent claim value rather than the nominal R$ 10,000 figure initially imposed by the trial court — a practical difference of roughly R$ 10,000 in fees on a single case, multiplied across hundreds of similar proceedings.
- At the root of the case is TRF-1’s annulment of a psychotechnical elimination that used a secret profesiographic profile, following the STF’s binding precedent in RE 1.133.146/DF requiring that psychological assessments in public competitions use objective, publicly disclosed criteria.
Why It Matters
The outcome of this Tema Repetitivo will have significant practical consequences across Brazilian public administration litigation. Hundreds of candidates each year challenge elimination from competitive examinations on procedural or substantive grounds; the claim value governs not only court fees but, critically, the calculation of attorney’s fees under Article 85, § 3º of the CPC. If the STJ ultimately holds that salary-equivalent valuation applies, examining bodies and the Union face substantially higher cost exposure in these disputes. If it holds that such suits are non-economic in nature, candidates’ counsel will recover far lower fees, affecting the economics of public-law litigation.
Beyond the fee question, the proceeding illustrates the STJ’s role in harmonizing divergent appellate practice: TRF-1 itself had issued conflicting panels on the same point (one panel applying salary-based valuation; another holding that no immediate economic benefit exists), a situation the repetitive-appeals mechanism is designed to cure by producing a single, universally binding tese that lower courts must follow.