The Union asks the Federal Supreme Court for the decision to be reconsidered or for its effectiveness to be postponed until 2027
The AGU (Advocacia Geral da União) appealed on Thursday (May 14, 2026) to the STF (Supreme Federal Court) against an injunction granted on May 5 that determines the adequacy of the CVM (Securities Commission) inspection fee. Minister Flávio Dino’s decision establishes that 70% of the fee will be allocated to the local authority, in compliance with the Constitution.
The decision will be submitted to a referendum in the STF plenary, in a virtual session starting this Friday (May 15, 2026). Ministers will have a week to deliberate on the measure.
In the appeal, the AGU asks that the decision be reconsidered or that its effectiveness be postponed until 2027, to mitigate impacts on other 2026 budget programs.
The body also requests an extension of the deadline, set at 20 calendar days, for presenting the Emergency Restructuring plans for Inspection and Complementary Activity.
For Dino, the measure seeks to reverse a situation of “institutional atrophy” e “budget suffocation” caused by the retention of the rate by the National Treasury.
In practice, the decision allows the amounts collected from the TFMTVM (Securities Market Inspection Fee) to be allocated exclusively to CVM activities. The minister stated that the National Treasury will no longer be able to retain the amounts and that the city hall must have direct access to the resources.
The Union argues that, since January 2023, the government had been institutionally strengthening the CVM.
“Undoubtedly, the needs for oversight of the capital market are growing, and the institutional improvement of the CVM is an essential measure to make this objective possible. However, the federal Public Power was not and is not oblivious to this reality. On the contrary, the Union has been adopting concrete measures aimed at institutionally strengthening the CVM”says the AGU.
Among the initiatives, AGU cites the progressive recomposition of the municipality’s staff with the holding of public competitions, after a long period without staff replacement.
In the appeal, the Union further states that “aggravated determinations produce serious consequences for the budgetary and financial regime provided for in the Constitution”. Among them, he cites the fiscal impact of the injunction on the administration of public policies foreseen in the Budget.
The body also says that Dino’s decision goes beyond the original debate, “in potential tension with the principles of separation of Powers, administrative reserve, fiscal sustainability and budgetary legality”.
