National Council of Justice says it is necessary to clarify the application of Flávio Dino’s decision and will await judgment from the full plenary of the Supreme Court
O (National Council of Justice) will wait for the plenary session of the Federal Supreme Court to decide on the suspension of compulsory retirement before applying the new rules. Counselors understand that the which ended punishment for serious infractions by magistrates, requires clarification on how the new rule will be applied.
Dino assured one of the counselors that, if an appeal is filed against his decision, he will take the case so that the plenary can decide collectively on the valid rules for punishing offending judges.
On Monday (March 16, 2026), the minister determined 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 an understanding that the decision helps offending judges to remain in the Judiciary system.
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
- Mandatory removal
- Availability (with salaries proportional to length of service)
- Compulsory retirement (with proportional salaries)
- Loss of position
To lose your position, you need 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.
