Minister of the Federal Supreme Court determined that serious infractions committed by judges should result in the loss of their position
The minister Flavio Dinoof the Federal Supreme Court (STF), decided that compulsory retirement with salaries proportional to time of service can no longer be applied as disciplinary punishment to magistrates. He ruled that serious infractions committed by judges should result in loss of office.
“It no longer makes sense for judges to be immune from an effective system of disciplinary responsibility, with the repudiated and already revoked ‘punitive compulsory retirement’”, said Dino in the decision.
The decision was taken while against minister Marco Buzzifrom the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), for sexual harassment allegedly committed against two women. Buzzi faces proceedings in the court itself and at the National Council of Justice (CNJ).
The compulsory retirement of judges is the most severe penalty provided for as a result of an administrative disciplinary process. It is provided for in article 42 of the Organic Law of the National Judiciary (Loman), which came into force during the military dictatorship in 1979.
A punishment is applied today in cases of corruption, misconduct and sale of sentences. Magistrates who receive the sentence continue to receive salaries proportional to their time of service. Dino’s decision ends this privilege.
In the minister’s view, “retirement is a social security benefit whose purpose is to guarantee workers decent living conditions when it is no longer possible to carry out work activities due to age limits, permanent incapacity for work or due to the combination of criteria of minimum age and contribution time”.
A decision was made in the trial of an action filed in 2024 by a judge removed from the Rio de Janeiro Court of Justice. He appealed the disciplinary punishments imposed, which were confirmed by the CNJ.
The judge worked in Mangaratiba (RJ) and was punished with censure, compulsory removal and two compulsory retirements after an inspection carried out by the internal affairs department for irregularities – such as deliberate procedural delays, release of blocked assets without a statement from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and decisions that would benefit military police officers.
Dino explained in the decision that, after the promulgation of Constitutional Amendment 103, of 2019, the possibility of compulsory retirement as an administrative punishment was eliminated. Although the decision made by Dino only applies to the specific case of the Mangaratiba judge, the understanding should be applied to other judges from now on – including Buzzi.
According to the decision, the National Council of Justice now has three alternatives in cases of infractions in the judiciary. You may acquit the judge, apply another administrative sanction or forward the case to the Attorney General’s Office so that an action can be taken to lose the judge’s position. Compulsory retirement, therefore, is no longer a form of punishment.
Before Dino’s decision, criminally convicted magistrates no longer had the right to compulsory retirement. In these cases, the legislation provided for the loss of office as an effect of the conviction, which, in practice, resulted in the judge’s expulsion from the bench.
In the minister’s assessment, the loss of office as the greatest penalty applicable to magistrates is justified by the “impossibility of maintaining a legal relationship with a civil servant who has been attributed with conduct that implies a high degree of demoralization of the public service and loss of trust in public institutions”.
*Estadão Content
