A interpretação extensiva do art. 833, x, do CPC/2015 dada pelo STJ e a pendente definição do tema 1.285: colisão entre a proteção ao mínimo existencial e a efetividade da tutela executiva

Abstract

The present research analyzed how the extensive interpretation granted by the Superior Court of Justice to art. 833, X, of the CPC/2015 in the judgment of the AgInt in REsp 1.812.780/SC led to the need to assign Theme 1.285 for judgment. by the Superior Court. The work highlights the collision between the protection of the debtor's minimum assets minimum of the debtor and the effectiveness of executive protection, examining the possibility to provide an effective resolution to the process, without sacrificing the rights and guaranties of litigants. The research was of a bibliographic and documentary type, using the method deductive and qualitative data analysis, examining one of the STJ rulings, the AgInt in REsp 1.812.780/SC, relating it to the allocation of Theme 1.285. It was examined how the extension of the exemption from seizure to financial investments and checking accounts up to 40 minimum wages, corroborates with the collision between the principles of effectiveness of protection and the safeguarding of the minimum assets of the defendant in civil proceedings. Moreover, the Topic 1.230, discussed in the Superior Court of Justice, emerged as a pathway that can support the balancing of conflicting principles, using as a basis the parameters discussed in the topic. The results demonstrate the possibility of ponder the conflicting principles, highlighting, however, the need for the Superior Court of Justice, when judging the affected matter, to provide clear and objective guidelines to judges, in order to limit the application of the precedent, ensuring the balance between the satisfaction of the right of the plaintiff, however, without sacrificing the right of the defendant to to have guarantyd protection for their minimum assets.