The Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) ruled that the fine reduction introduced by the Agência Nacional de Transportes Terrestres (ANTT) resolution 5.847/2019 does not apply retroactively, rejecting a claim that the change should benefit carriers already penalized.
The argument relied on the criminal‑law doctrine of retroatividade benéfica, which obliges courts to apply a lighter penalty when the statute changes after the conduct, but its transposition to administrative sanction regimes is contested.
Resolution lowered penalty for obstructing cargo inspections
Resolution 5.847/2019 cut the sanction for hindering road‑cargo inspections from R$ 5 000 to R$ 550. The measure targets transport companies that attempt to make regulatory checks harder and seeks to create a more proportionate deterrent.
By reducing the amount to a figure closer to the actual cost of the inspection process, the ANTT intended to avoid excessive financial strain on operators while still discouraging deliberate obstruction.
The legal dispute centered on whether the principle that a more favorable law should apply to past cases—common in criminal law—could be transferred to this administrative context, where the stakes involve commercial liabilities rather than personal freedom.
Justices agree on non‑retroactivity, differ on scope
The panel voted unanimously that the new fine level is not retroactive. Justice Paulo Sérgio Domingues authored the majority opinion, stressing that criminal and administrative sanction regimes operate under different logic and that “the penalties in administrative sanction law have a patrimonial nature.”
Read Also: Florida No-Fault Law Does Not Block Injury Claims
The unanimity reflected a shared view that the nature of administrative penalties, tied to the taxpayer’s assets, differs fundamentally from criminal sanctions that affect liberty.
Domingues noted the view departs from earlier STJ guidance but aligns with the Supreme Court’s decision in Tema 1.199, which held that beneficial provisions of the 2021 anti‑corruption law are also non‑retroactive.
Previously, the STJ had occasionally allowed retroactive benefit in similar administrative matters, a stance that the current reasoning explicitly overturns.
He suggested the ruling’s effect start from the date the judgment is published, acknowledging that some prior decisions had applied the opposite view.
Justice Regina Helena Costa opposed any modulation, arguing that the Supreme Court had not set a precedent for such an approach and that the STJ risked overstepping by extending the doctrine sideways. The magistrate warned that a broad retroactive reading could unsettle settled cases.
Regina Helena Costa highlighted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tema 1.199 did not include a modulation clause, making any extension of that approach by the STJ a matter of judicial discretion.
Read Also: North Carolina Catastrophic Injury Lawyers Ranked
Justice Herman Benjamin warned that altering the jurisprudential base could unleash a “Pandora’s box” of appeals, given the large volume of cases tied to retroactivity questions. The judge emphasized the need for legal certainty in the transport sector.
His warning referenced the backlog of appeals that routinely challenge the temporal application of regulatory changes, showing the systemic impact of any shift.
The vote on modulation ended in a 4‑4 tie; President of the chamber Justice Gurgel de Faria cast the deciding vote, siding with Costa’s position. The presiding judge explained that maintaining the status quo protects the consistency of administrative enforcement.
The two appeals examined were REsp 2175767 and REsp 2175768. Both involved carriers contesting fines imposed before the 2019 resolution took effect, arguing that they should benefit from the lower amount.
While the decision limits immediate financial relief for firms that already paid higher penalties, it also clarifies that administrative reforms will not automatically rewrite past liabilities. Companies will need to plan future compliance under the lower rate, but past obligations remain unchanged.
The vote was tied.
