LIMITS ON THE SEIZURE OF SALARY
PAYMENTS: the effectiveness of enforcement and the minimum subsistence level
Name: ANTONIO CESAR ZANON GREGÓRIO
Publication date: 21/05/2026
Examining board:
Name |
Role |
|---|---|
| AUGUSTO PASSAMANI BUFULIN | Presidente |
| THIAGO FELIPE VARGAS SIMÕES | Examinador Externo |
| THIAGO FERREIRA SIQUEIRA | Examinador Interno |
Summary: This research examines the relativization of the unseizability of wages in civil enforcement
proceedings, with a focus on the criteria adopted by the Superior Court of Justice to allow the
attachment of remuneration in situations not expressly provided for in Article 833, item IV and
paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is grounded on the understanding that, although
enforcement is aimed at realizing rights recognized in court, its effectiveness encounters
structural limits within the system of unseizability, particularly with regard to wages, whose
protection is linked to the preservation of the subsistence minimum and human dignity. In this
context, the research seeks to answer the following question: which criteria, implicit or explicit,
emerge from the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the relativization of
the unseizability of remuneration, and how do these criteria relate to the normative limits
established by Article 833, item IV and paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure? The
working hypothesis is that the Court has admitted the mitigation of the statutory rule based on
constitutional and procedural principles, notably the effectiveness of enforcement and human
dignity, albeit through decisional constructions marked by significant variability in their factual
premises and application criteria. Adopting a predominantly case law–based approach,
combined with the analysis of domestic and foreign scholarship on civil enforcement, asset
liability, and the subsistence minimum, the study aims to identify, organize, and critically
examine the grounds invoked in the flexibilization of wage unseizability, without proposing
novel criteria, but rather seeking to enhance the intelligibility, coherence, and systematic
treatment of the issue. It concludes that the lack of uniformity in the application of these criteria
undermines the predictability of judicial decisions, weakens legal certainty, and reveals the need
for greater argumentative rigor in the development of case law, in order to more consistently
reconcile the effectiveness of enforcement with the preservation of the debtor’s minimum living
conditions.
