| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study is to examine the possibility of blocking financial assets through BACEN
JUD, before attempting to cite the debtor in the context of federal tax enforcement. The research is
mainly justified by the innovations of article 854 of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, which provides
for the online attachment procedure, which has not yet been satisfactorily addressed by doctrine and
jurisprudence. In addition, the sources of study from the old CPC are limited and generic, considering
the pacification of the STJ understanding at that time, as well as confusing as to the interpretations
of the LEF, CPC/1973 and CTN provisions. To achieve this goal, a qualitative research, dogmatic
approach was conducted, which mainly analyzed the arts. 238, 239, 240, 300, 301, 305, 312, 829,
830 and 854, all of CPC/2015, and arts. 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th of Law 6.830/1980, which provide
for the acts of online citation, blocking and attachment, as well as art. 5, clauses LIV, LV and LXXVIII,
of CF/88, which establishes the principles of due process of law, contradictory and ample defense,
besides having the subsumption to the bibliographic and documentary revision, which revealed the
tax attorney position and the favorable to debtors, as well as a jurisprudential research on the subject.
Through these surveys, it was shown that the National Treasury Attorney understands that art. 854
of CPC/2015 allowed the unavailability of financial assets, prior to attempting to cite the debtor, and
that the measure may be determined by the judge, through its General Power of Caution, to preserve
the effectiveness and utility of the executive process. From another perspective, jurists understand
the need for citation prior to blocking, in compliance with the constitutional principles of due process,
contradictory and ample defense in compliance with the provisions of arts. 7, 8 and 10 of the LEF
and art. 829 of CPC/2015, as well as the absence of exception imposed by art. 854 of the new Code
of Rites. At the end of the analysis, the initial hypothesis was not confirmed, since it corroborates the
arguments of impossibility of blocking assets, through BACEN JUD, before attempting to summon
the debtor in the context of federal tax enforcement. | |
