The controversy involved the application of the deadlines established by the Brazilian Civil Code in its articles 205 and 206, §3, V. The first article assigns a general prescriptive period of 10 (ten) years, when the law does not assign a shorter period; the second applies especially to the claim for civil compensation, to which it assigns a prescriptive period of 3 (three) years.
In her reasoning, Minister Nancy Andrighi concluded that the term “civil reparation”, according to the systematic interpretation of the Brazilian Civil Code, covers only the harmful consequences of an unlawful act or conduct in the strict sense, establishing the understanding that this hypothesis deals exclusively with cases of extra-contractual civil liability, that is, situations that do not arise from contractual obligations.
In cases of breach of contract, in addition to the specific performance of the service, in cases of performance by equivalent or resolution of the contractual legal relationship, the creditor may also request payment of losses and damages caused by the non-compliance.
It is in this sense that the Minister states that the situation requires the application of the same rules to all potential claims of the creditor: “There appears to be no legal or logical sense in the statement that the creditor has a period to demand compliance with the obligation and another to claim payment for losses and damages.".
In short, the difference in treatment was recognized regarding the prescriptive term applicable to cases of extra-contractual civil liability (to which the three-year term applies) and those of contractual civil liability, that is, losses and damages arising from breach of contract, to which the 10 (ten)-year term applies, as well as to the creditor's other claims.
