The Attorney General’s Office defends that the decision be analyzed by the court’s plenary; the expectation is that the measure will only be applied by the CNJ after a collegial statement
The Attorney General’s Office of the Republic filed an appeal this Monday (March 30, 2026) against the decision of Minister Flávio Dino, of the Federal Supreme Court, who suspended “compulsory retirement” from the list of serious sanctions against magistrates. With the appeal, the PGR wants the case to be analyzed by the court’s plenary
As anticipated by the Poder360there is an expectation from the CNJ (National Council of Justice) that the decision on the end of compulsory retirement and its application will be fixed by the court’s plenary. The advisors interviewed by this digital newspaper stated that Minister Flávio Dino had already committed to taking the case to the plenary if there was an appeal. The process is confidential.
The regulatory appeal filed by Deputy Attorney General Elizeta Ramos de Paiva argues that the decision lacks specifics regarding its practical application by the courts. Furthermore, the appeal requests that the court carry out a collegial assessment on the matter.
On March 16, the minister ordered the removal of compulsory retirement from the list of punishments for judges targeted in administrative proceedings. The minister understood that the Pension Reform,only establishes removal from office as the most serious punishment.
“In view of the constitutional change and in light of the principle of morality, serious infractions by judges must be punished with loss of office, with a procedure appropriate to the principle of reasonable duration of the process, through the action of the National Council of Justice and the Federal Supreme Court”he declared.
Dino judged a judge’s action requesting a review of the CNJ’s decision that compulsorily retired him. The minister, however, understanding that it is only up to the STF to review the correction body’s decisions, not only removed compulsory retirement in the specific case but also expanded the rule to the entire Judiciary. The CNJ was notified of the determination.
DECISION QUESTIONS
Dino’s decision caused doubts and questions from judiciary associations and CNJ advisors. The entities claim that they still do not know how the new rules will be applied, as there are questions about processes that are already underway. There is also the understanding that the decision helps violating judges to remain in the Judiciary.
The argument is that, by removing compulsory retirement, Dino limits the possibilities of sanctions and, in practice, only establishes the “availability” as an administrative sanction. The Organic Law of the Judiciary establishes the following sanctions:
- warning;
- censorship;
- compulsory removal;
- availability (with salaries proportional to length of service);
- compulsory retirement (with proportional salaries);
- loss of position.
To lose your position, it is necessary not only an administrative process by the internal affairs department, but a final court decision. The associations claim that this would make it more difficult to remove the offending judges from their positions, since a definitive conviction would be necessary, either by the Courts of Justice, for 1st degree judges, or by the STJ (Superior Court of Justice) for 2nd degree judges.
COLLEGIATE DECISION
At the CNJ, the expectation is that a collegial decision by the STF will make the new rules for administrative punishments clearer. Furthermore, there is concern about how to deal with the compulsory retirement processes that are already underway.
As this digital newspaper reported, since 2006,. One of the counselors has already directly questioned Minister Flávio Dino about his decision and hopes that, with an appeal analyzed by the plenary, the case will be clarified.
