Decree 11,150/22, signed by President Jair Bolsonaro, regulates the super-indebtedness law (14,181/21) and establishes that the existential minimum corresponds to 25% of the minimum wage. In current values, this is equivalent to R$ 303.
The super-indebtedness law, enacted last year, introduced the concept of an existential minimum in the CDC – a value that must be preserved for the consumer in debt negotiation. The law, however, had not stipulated what this minimum value would be.
Some debts do not fall within this limit, including: payroll-deductible loans, real estate financing and those arising from a credit agreement guaranteed by surety or surety.
The presidential decree, published in the DOU this Wednesday, 27, comes into force in 60 days.
Bolsonaro’s decree sets R$303 as an existential minimum.(Image: Freepik)
“Affront to the Brazilian People”
After the publication of the decree, the Idec – Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense classified the value of the existential minimum as an “affront to the Brazilian people”, placing “the population below the poverty line”.
“How to pay the rent, the energy bill, the water bill, the condominium, buy food, water to drink, basic expenses with health and education with R$ 300.00? This is what the Bolsonaro government says is feasible”says the coordinator of Idec’s Financial Services Program, Ione Amorim.
“In a great maneuver to favor the banks, the government hands over the financial life of consumers to the sector. Among the measures recently announced is the expansion of the consignment margin from 35% to 45% of the income of users of payroll-deductible credit, including with the possibility of consignment of Auxílio Brasil, a social program for the population in situations of vulnerability. Now banks can still use 75% of the consumer’s income to pay bank debts”says the coordinator.
In a technical note, Brasilcon – Brazilian Institute of Consumer Policy and Law stressed that the decree “it ends up limiting its scope, restricting its content, prohibiting situations that are not prohibited and showing, in terms of dignity, total contempt for the human person in a legal situation of over-indebtedness”.
“In other words: it disproportionately disregards personal or collective sacrifice. From such perspectives, there is no mistake in noting the lack of constitutionality of Decree 11.150/22, as well as the clear illegality of the legislation that required the regulation.”
Read the full note.