{"id":8992,"date":"2026-04-14T21:58:23","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T21:58:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cosro.com\/?p=8992"},"modified":"2026-04-14T21:59:45","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T21:59:45","slug":"radar-ambiental-o-instituto-da-prescricao-intercorrente-e-o-tema-no-1-294-do-stj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cosro.com\/en\/radar-ambiental-o-instituto-da-prescricao-intercorrente-e-o-tema-no-1-294-do-stj\/","title":{"rendered":"Radar Ambiental: The institute of intercurrent prescription and topic no. 1,294 of the stj"},"content":{"rendered":"

In December 2025, the First Section of the Superior Court of Justice (\"STJ\") concluded the judgment of Repetitive Theme No. 1,294[1]<\/a>, an opportunity in which it established a relevant thesis on the impossibility of using Decree No. 20,910\/1932 for the purpose of recognizing the intercurrent statute of limitations in the course of administrative sanctioning proceedings of States and Municipalities in the absence of a specific local law (\"Decree 20.910\/1932 does not provide for the intercurrent statute of limitations, and cannot be used as a normative reference for its recognition in state and municipal administrative proceedings, even if by analogy\"<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The discussion submitted to the STJ aimed to define whether Decree No. 20,910\/1932[2]<\/a>, which regulates the five-year statute of limitations for claims against the federal, state, or municipal Treasury, could regulate the statute of limitations for claims of the state or municipal Treasury in the absence of a specific rule. In other words, the possibility of applying the decree by analogy to fill any legislative gap was discussed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the STJ's understanding, the matter relating to the intercurrent statute of limitations in subnational sanctioning administrative proceedings is the exclusive competence of the federated entities, and that the recognition of the use of the period provided for in Decree No. 20,910\/1932 by analogy would violate the separation of powers. The leading vote expressly states that \"it is not up to the Judiciary to create deadlines, interruptive causes or initial milestones by analogy or extensive interpretation, under penalty of usurping the normative function attributed to the Legislative Branch and compromising the autonomy of the States and Municipalities, emptying the effectiveness of the principle of separation of powers.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In reference to the previous discussion, the STJ also reaffirmed that Federal Law No. 9,873\/1999[3]<\/a>, in turn, has a scope of application restricted to the Federal Public Administration, not extending to administrative proceedings in States and Municipalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To evaluate the consequences of the thesis established in Repetitive Theme No. 1,294, our Environmental Team prepared a material that explains the statute of limitations and evaluates the legal provisions on the intercurrent statute of limitations in each state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statute of limitations, existing modalities and their function in the legal system<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The statute of limitations is an institute of Brazilian law intended to impose time limits on the exercise of claims, preventing litigation from remaining open indefinitely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Within the scope of Administrative Sanctioning Law, the statute of limitations acts as a control of the state's punitive power, as it prevents the Administration, due to inertia or disorganization, from indefinitely maintaining pending\/ongoing proceedings, subjecting the administrated to a state of permanent uncertainty. Thus, in addition to producing procedural effects, the statute of limitations reflects a constitutional conception of limitation of the State by time, which is why its non-observance directly affronts the legal certainty of the administrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The doctrine classifies the sanctioning administrative statute of limitations into three main modalities: punitive, intercurrent, and enforceable prescription. Each of them falls at a different time in the exercise of the state's sanctioning power, as can be seen in the table below:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n
\n
Statute of Limitations<\/td>Definition<\/td>Deadline<\/td><\/tr>
Statute of Limitations for Punitive Action<\/td>Deadline for the Administration to initiate the administrative proceeding and exercise its punitive claim<\/td>5 years<\/strong>
(general rule of article 1 of Federal Law No. 9,873\/1999[4]<\/a> and article 21 of Federal Decree No. 6,514\/2008[5]<\/a>)<\/td><\/tr>
Intercurrent Statute of Limitations<\/td>It occurs when the process, already initiated, is paralyzed for an unjustified period due to inertia of the Public Administration.[6]<\/a> por per\u00edodo injustificado por in\u00e9rcia da Administra\u00e7\u00e3o P\u00fablica.
<\/td>		3 years<\/strong>
(art. 1, \u00a71, Federal Law No. 9,873\/1999[7]<\/a> nd art. 21, \u00a72 of Federal Decree No. 6,514\/2008[8]<\/a>)<\/td><\/tr>
Statute of Limitations for Enforcement Action<\/td>It applies when, after the penalty has been applied, the Public Administration does not promote its execution within the deadline.<\/td>5 years<\/strong>
(art. 1-A of Federal Law No. 9,873\/1999[9]<\/a>).
<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Impacts of the thesis on administrative environmental sanctioning proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The thesis established in Repetitive Theme No. 1,294 by the STJ projects significant effects in the field of Environmental Law, notably by making it impossible to use Decree 20,910\/1932 for the purpose of recognizing the intervening statute of limitations in the course of administrative sanctioning proceedings (i.e. infraction notices, embargoes, notifications) that are processed in states and municipalities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is because, by rejecting the application of Decree No. 20,910\/1932 as a supplementary parameter and conditioning the recognition of the intercurrent statute of limitations to the existence of a specific law enacted by each federative entity, the STJ now prevents the use of a federal rule to establish a minimum and common time limitation of the environmental sanctioning power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only that, the thesis signed reaffirms and deepens the normative fragmentation, attributing to each State and Municipality the freedom to legislate, or not to legislate, on the matter. In practice, depending on the federative unit in which the administrative sanctioning proceeding is processed, the administrated party may be subject to reasonable and defined deadlines or, on the contrary, may remain indefinitely bound to an administrative proceeding with no forecast of conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although the STJ has recorded that the absence of a legal provision on intercurrent prescription would not imply an absence of control, referring the containment of administrative slowness to the constitutional principle of reasonable duration of the process provided for in article 5, LXXVIII of the Federal Constitution, such a guideline proves to be insufficient and not very operative, since without objective criteria for paralysis of the action, clear milestones of interruption or minimum temporal parameters, the principle ends up emptied of effectiveness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From a critical perspective, although formally legalistic, this orientation allows, in practice, administrative proceedings to be prolonged indefinitely, emptying the normative content of the guarantee of the reasonable duration of the process and normalizing state inertia as a structural factor of the sanctioning procedure. Instead of inducing the Administration to adopt clear time frames and manage its facts efficiently, the burden is transferred to the administrated, who starts to depend on judicialization to obtain the recognition of a prescription that should be controllable and verifiable within the administrative sphere itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The practical result is the consolidation of a scenario in which judicialization is no longer an exception and will continue to function as an ordinary instrument for reviewing administrative sanctioning proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, the established thesis also has the potential to discourage the production of qualified norms by States and Municipalities, which, not being compelled by a federal or objective jurisprudential parameter, may deliberately choose not to legislate on the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The absence of equivalent legislation in several States and Municipalities has generated, over the last few years, a discrepancy and lack of uniformity in the legal treatment of the matter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The intercurrent statute of limitations in the states<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consolidation of the information reveals an uneven scenario among the federative units and a relevant normative void with regard to the application of the intervening statute of limitations in sanctioning proceedings at the state level. If we consider the idea of uniformity of the legal system, as the basis of the principles of equality and legal certainty, for example, the discrepancy in normative treatment is extremely harmful to the Law and to society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To exemplify this disparity, our Environmental Team has organized a spreadsheet consolidating the normative provisions on the institute of intercurrent prescription in the States (Annex 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data analyzed were extracted from the applicable state legislation, according to the examination of the norms of each federative unit, allowing to map, objectively, where there is or is not discipline on the subject.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This survey helps to measure the problem of the application of the institute, revealing the breadth of the existing normative vacuum and the lack of uniformity in the legal treatment of the matter at the subnational level:<\/p>\n\n\n\n