This Monday, minister Flávio Dino removed the measure as punishment for serious infractions; sanction will be removal from position without salary
O (National Council of Justice) stated this Monday (March 16, 2026) that, in 20 years, it determined the compulsory retirement of 126 magistrates for serious infractions. Minister Flávio Dino ruled out compulsory retirement as an administrative sanction, establishing removal from office as the main punishment. Read the (PDF – 432 kB).
“If the administrative conclusion for the loss of the magistrate’s position comes from a Court, the process must be forwarded to the CNJ, followed by the subsequent procedure before the STF”said the minister.
JUDICIARY REFORM
Since the reform of the Judiciary in 2004, implemented with the the CNJ began to exercise administrative and disciplinary control over the Judiciary. The body is responsible for monitoring the performance of courts and magistrates across the country — with the exception of the STF (Supreme Federal Court).
According to the CNJ, the punishments applied since 2006 resulted from administrative disciplinary proceedings initiated against magistrates accused of irregularities in the exercise of their function.
With the new decision, compulsory retirement is no longer applied as an administrative punishment, opening space for more severe sanctions, such as loss of position. “It no longer makes sense for magistrates to be immune from an effective system of disciplinary responsibility, with the repudiated and already revoked punitive compulsory retirement”, stated minister Flávio Dino.
Compulsory retirement is considered the most severe penalty provided for in the administrative sphere of the judiciary. The sanction removes the judge from exercising his position, but preserves the right to remuneration proportional to the length of service.
The punishment is provided for in which establishes the disciplinary rules applicable to judges.
CHANGE OF PUNISHMENT
This Monday (March 16, 2026), Minister Flávio Dino judged an appeal against the CNJ decision that compulsorily retired a judge investigated for disciplinary infractions. On the merits, Dino understood that it is only up to the STF to review CNJ decisions and that, as the retirement cannot be maintained, the Council must re-analyze the decisions on the cases.
The decision reignited the debate about the limits of administrative punishments imposed on magistrates and the effectiveness of the sanctions applied by the CNJ.
