591. If the loan is intended for economic purposes, account shall be taken of interest which, on pain of reduction, may not exceed the rate of interest contemplated in section 406, which allows annual capitalization. As mentioned above, the legal interest rate is 1% per month, or 12% per year. Thus, the limit of the agreed rate would be 2% per month or 24% per year. In view of the prevailing position of legal literature and the trends in case-law, it can be concluded that the interpretation best suited to the spirit of the Civil Code in force is that the statutory interest rate within the meaning of Article 406 is 1% per month, which corresponds to the percentage of 12% per year. Article 1.062 of the repealed Civil Code stipulates that the moratorium on interest, if not agreed, would be 6% (six per cent) per annum. However, another chain of case-law has been established which authorises the application of the Selic rate on the basis of Article 13 of Law No 9.065 of 1995 and Article 39(4) of Law No 9.250 of 1995. Indeed, the aforementioned laws are governed by the National Tax Code and set the Selic rate for the calculation of interest on federal securities, as is the case of Article 13 of Law 9.065, which stipulates: There are several discussions about interest on default interest, i.e. on the applicable legal interest rate, or on the interest limit, which may be agreed between the parties.

The case law itself presents judgments with different interpretations in this regard. Although the situation analysed by Federal Judge Johonsom Di Salvo is different (the case in question concerns the late receipt of loans owed by consumers to the bank, while the case considered by the Supreme Court concerned the return to the taxpayer of amounts wrongly paid to the tax authorities), the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Question 962 of the General implications applies perfectly to the case of the The debtors made default on loans, plus interest and currency correction. On the other hand, if the SELIC rate were applied, which already includes interest rate and exchange rate adjustments, the following scenario would also result in a debt of $100,000.00. Note in the article highlighted above that there is a presumption of interest due with a defined limit and is evident in section 406 of this law. So, let`s see: finally, after the burden-setting controversies are resolved, it is concluded that default interest has a limit of 1% per month, which is easily capitalizable. But there is a vote by the Minister-Rapporteur, Luis Felipe Salomão, who expresses the feeling that for civil debt, the best mechanism to focus on convictions would be to apply the official currency correction index plus the interest rate of 1% per month, which is contrary to the position of the Supreme Court. Even in the resolution of the BACBEN, there is no evidence of the form of collection, but only that the moratorium complies with the legislation in force (which has already been identified – 1%), and the criteria and the form of collection should be included in the contract signed with the client. This will enable the Federal Supreme Court to answer the question. First of all, it should be noted that default interest is generated in the event of default, i.e. at the moment when no payment has been made on the scheduled or agreed date under a banking contract or even in documents, such as receipts in general. Thus, it can be understood that these fees constitute a penalty for non-compliance and also encourage timely payment by consumers.

However, its applicability in terms of the percentage permitted by law and the regime of its incidence in the chargeable event (single or compound) is controversial. www.valor.com.br/legislacao/3329036/juros-de-mora-de-1-e-o-codigo-civil#ixzz2jrjxLNOe However, it does not fix the maximum percentage in the Civil Code if it has expressly consented to it. However, if a banking contract indicates, for example, in the default clause that default interest will be charged at the rate of 14.10% per month, the National Tax Code (Law No. 5.172 of 25 October 1966) must be evaluated in order to reach a conclusion on the issue. Note what the law shows: However, the National Tax Code expressly provides for the application of the 1% rate, only in cases where the law does not provide for any other means. Let`s see: “Art. 161. The credit not paid in full on the due date is increased by default interest, whatever the decisive reason for the absence, without prejudice to the imposition of the applicable penalties and the application of the guarantee measures provided for by this Law or by the tax legislation.

Paragraph 1 – If the law has no other basis, default interest of one per cent per month will be charged. Without going into the legality/constitutionality of these fees, it should be noted that instead of late payment in court, article 406 of the new Civil Code allows for moratoria to be imposed at a higher percentage than that currently practiced, which, once agreed, bluntly reminds the defaulter of the convenience of not paying his obligations on time.