The Federal Supreme Court (STF) unanimously ruled that the Selic rate must be applied as the official index for updating civil debts. The decision standardizes the legal treatment of such obligations and puts an end to long-standing divergences among courts and judicial instances.
The STF followed the orientation already consolidated by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), which had consistently interpreted Article 406 of the Civil Code as referring to the interest rate applicable to federal tax arrears, namely, the Selic. In addition, Law No. 14,905/2024 codified this interpretation by expressly establishing the Selic rate as the legal index for updating civil debts.
The Court’s reasoning is grounded, first and foremost, in Article 406 of the Civil Code, which provides that, in the absence of a contractual stipulation, the default interest rate shall be that applicable to federal tax arrears. This provision, as interpreted by the STJ, leads to the recognition of the Selic as the statutory benchmark.
Furthermore, the recent enactment of Law No. 14,905/2024 reinforced this interpretation by expressly amending the Civil Code to designate the Selic as the legal index for monetary correction. Thus, the STF’s decision not only aligns with the already settled jurisprudential understanding but also gives effect to the legislative innovation intended to eliminate disputes on the matter.
Practical Implications
The application of the Selic rate enhances legal certainty and reduces inconsistencies in judicial practice, as courts had previously applied different criteria for updating civil debts. The unification of the index avoids distortions and fosters predictability in both judicial and contractual calculations.
On the other hand, the change may generate significant financial impacts. In many cases, the Selic results in a higher burden for debtors compared to the prior combination of fixed 1% monthly interest with inflation indexes, thereby increasing the final amount of judgments. For creditors, however, the ruling strengthens the expectation that the debt owed will more accurately reflect the loss of monetary value.
Nonetheless, some criticisms persist, particularly the argument that the Selic, in certain economic scenarios, may not fully ensure integral reparation—especially during periods of high inflation.