Post by account_disabled on Mar 10, 2024 5:16:21 GMT -5
There is no exaggeration in setting a daily fine for a financial institution that is exempt from the obligation to cancel undue protests and remove a customer's name from restrictive credit records. The understanding comes from the rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice, which ordered Unibanco to pay compensation for moral damages to a customer in the amount of R$,, for undue protest. For failing to comply with the obligation established by court, the bank will still have to pay approximately R$,
Unibanco's special appeal to the STJ sought to assess whether there were exaggerations in the fine imposed for non-compliance with a court order, which added to the value of the moral damage amounts to R$, The rapporteur of the case, Minister Nancy Andrighi, highlighted that the reduction in the value indicates that the fines set for compliance with obligations are not serious and leads to the belief that, if the Austria Phone Numbers List value of the fine becomes high in the future, the defaulter can count on complacency of the Judiciary.
“This special appeal is rich in arguments to demonstrate the exaggeration of the fine, but is poor in justifications as to the reasons for the bank's resistance to complying with the court order", said the minister, stating that no “exceptional” impediments were demonstrated to justify the bank's resistance to complying with the court order.
The action
The Unibanco client requested compensation for moral damages against the bank due to an undue protest of title in the amount of R$, At the time, the financial institution also included the account holder's name in the credit restrictive records.
During the process, the judge ordered the bank to pay minimum wages for moral damages and made available to the account holder a letter through which he could request the write-off of the notes discussed in the action. Alleging poverty and the high costs of such action, the client requested that the bank be determined to resolve the problem.
The judge ordered the bank to remove the restrictions imposed on the customer. To comply with the determination, a fine of one minimum wage, at the time, per day of non-compliance was initially set, later increased to R$
However, the first enforcement action took place against Unibanco for non-compliance with the court order, this time imposing a fine of R$, on the financial institution. Only after the judge increased the fine to R$, per day of non-compliance with the order did the bank remove the customer's data from the restrictive records days later.
A second action was filed against the bank so that the customer would receive the fine due for the period not covered by the first execution, between July and August The amount of the debt was R$ , on the date of the filing.
Unibanco's special appeal to the STJ sought to assess whether there were exaggerations in the fine imposed for non-compliance with a court order, which added to the value of the moral damage amounts to R$, The rapporteur of the case, Minister Nancy Andrighi, highlighted that the reduction in the value indicates that the fines set for compliance with obligations are not serious and leads to the belief that, if the Austria Phone Numbers List value of the fine becomes high in the future, the defaulter can count on complacency of the Judiciary.
“This special appeal is rich in arguments to demonstrate the exaggeration of the fine, but is poor in justifications as to the reasons for the bank's resistance to complying with the court order", said the minister, stating that no “exceptional” impediments were demonstrated to justify the bank's resistance to complying with the court order.
The action
The Unibanco client requested compensation for moral damages against the bank due to an undue protest of title in the amount of R$, At the time, the financial institution also included the account holder's name in the credit restrictive records.
During the process, the judge ordered the bank to pay minimum wages for moral damages and made available to the account holder a letter through which he could request the write-off of the notes discussed in the action. Alleging poverty and the high costs of such action, the client requested that the bank be determined to resolve the problem.
The judge ordered the bank to remove the restrictions imposed on the customer. To comply with the determination, a fine of one minimum wage, at the time, per day of non-compliance was initially set, later increased to R$
However, the first enforcement action took place against Unibanco for non-compliance with the court order, this time imposing a fine of R$, on the financial institution. Only after the judge increased the fine to R$, per day of non-compliance with the order did the bank remove the customer's data from the restrictive records days later.
A second action was filed against the bank so that the customer would receive the fine due for the period not covered by the first execution, between July and August The amount of the debt was R$ , on the date of the filing.