Background
Daniel Reis da Silva was eliminated from the Federal Highway Police (Polícia Rodoviária Federal) recruitment process — governed by Notice No. 1/2021 — after failing the psychological evaluation phase. He filed an ordinary action against CEBRASPE (the testing body) and the Federal Government seeking annulment of that elimination, a new psychological examination conducted under objective and non-secret criteria, and permission to continue competing in the remaining phases. The trial court ruled in his favor, declaring the administrative act that disqualified him null and void and ordering that he be appointed and sworn in on equal footing with other candidates in strict order of classification. It also awarded attorneys’ fees against the defendants, pegging them to a cause-of-action value that the appellate court later fixed at R$ 118,798.56 — the equivalent of twelve months of the salary for a Federal Highway Police officer — by applying Article 292, § 2º, of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The Federal Regional Court of the First Region (TRF-1) partially granted the appeals filed by the Federal Government, CEBRASPE, and the plaintiff. On the merits, TRF-1 upheld the result: the plaintiff had been re-examined by court order and found psychologically fit, so his disqualification was not reversed, but he was permitted to be appointed before the judgment became final. The court eliminated the attorneys’ fees award on causality grounds, yet raised the amount-in-controversy to R$ 118,798.56, reasoning that the annual salary of the contested position is the proper benchmark for suits seeking entry into public employment.
Both CEBRASPE and the plaintiff filed Special Appeals (Recursos Especiais) to the STJ. The plaintiff argued that attorneys’ fees should have been awarded. CEBRASPE challenged the merits ruling and, crucially for the repetitive-appeals designation, argued that because the lawsuit sought only the annulment of a single examination phase — an obligation to act (obrigação de fazer) — with no immediate economic benefit, the salary-based formula of Article 292, § 2º, CPC should not apply, and the cause-of-action value should instead reflect the nominal, non-economic nature of the claim. TRF-1’s own case-management unit had already identified 201 similar cases raising the same question and referred the matter to the STJ for potential designation as a leading case.
The Court’s Holding
The First Section of the STJ, voting unanimously under the rapporteurship of Minister Sérgio Kukina, formally designated REsp 2253004 as the representative leading case (recurso representativo da controvérsia) under the repetitive-appeals procedure established by Articles 1,036 et seq. of the CPC and Article 257-C of the STJ’s Internal Rules (RISTJ). The court did not resolve the underlying legal question at this stage; it instead defined the disputed thesis to be decided: “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 amount in controversy.”
As an immediate procedural consequence, and also by unanimous vote under Article 1,037, II, of the CPC, the court ordered the suspension of all special appeals and interlocutory appeals from special appeals — whether pending before second-instance courts or already before the STJ — that concern the designated question. The STJ also directed that notice of the designation be sent to all STJ justices and to the presidents of every Federal Regional Court and State Court of Justice in Brazil, and that the Federal Public Ministry be given fifteen days to submit an opinion before the case is set for final argument.
The court’s decision to select this case reflects the recognized scale of the controversy: 201 related judgments were identified in TRF-1 alone, with 27 chosen as representative samples for the referral. The STJ found the threshold requirements of admissibility, relevance, breadth, and multiplicity to be met, making definitive guidance by the court appropriate through the binding-precedent mechanism.
Key Takeaways
- The STJ has not yet ruled on the merits of the underlying question; it has only taken jurisdiction and frozen related proceedings while the issue is formally briefed and decided.
- The core legal question is whether suits challenging only one phase of a public competitive examination — where success would not immediately yield salary or appointment — must have their amount in controversy set by reference to twelve months of the position’s salary under Article 292, § 2º, CPC, or whether a nominal/non-economic value is correct.
- All special appeals and related interlocutory appeals nationwide that turn on this same question are now stayed pending the STJ’s binding ruling.
- Once the STJ issues its binding thesis, it will constitute a binding precedent under Article 927, III, of the CPC, obligating lower courts to follow it in all similar cases.
- The outcome will have significant downstream consequences for attorneys’ fees calculations, since the amount in controversy is the base figure from which percentage-based fee awards are computed under Article 85, § 3º, CPC.
Why It Matters
The amount-in-controversy question may appear technical, but its practical stakes are substantial. Hundreds of candidates challenge public competitive examination results each year across Brazil, typically contesting only a single disqualifying phase such as a psychological evaluation, physical fitness test, or documentary review. If courts apply the twelve-salary formula of Article 292, § 2º, to these cases, attorneys’ fees — which are calculated as a percentage of the amount in controversy — can reach tens of thousands of reais even in disputes whose immediate object is purely procedural. Conversely, if the formula is inapplicable because no immediate economic benefit is at stake, cause values drop sharply, as do the fee awards that incentivize litigation and compensate counsel. The answer shapes the litigation economics of an entire category of public-law disputes.
The STJ’s eventual binding ruling will also resolve an acknowledged split in the lower courts: TRF-1 itself had case law going in both directions, with some panels applying the salary-based formula and others holding that no immediate economic benefit means no salary-based valuation. A uniform national standard will reduce forum-shopping, promote predictability for candidates and public bodies alike, and allow the hundreds of stayed proceedings to resume with clear procedural footing.