In light of this new scenario, some State Judges and Courts began to order the seizure of debtors' national driver's licenses ("CNH") or passports as a coercive measure to ensure that debts were paid.
However, another section of the Judiciary was against implementing the measure of seizing documents as a coercive means of paying debts, since adopting such a measure would be a serious violation of that individual's fundamental right to come and go.
At this stage, the discussion was taken to the Superior Court of Justice (“STJ”), through Habeas Corpus Appeal No. 99.606/SP, reported by Minister Nancy Andrighi, at which time it was clarified that, as a rule, Habeas Corpus would not be the correct procedural instrument to contest a possible decision to seize a driver's license, as such a measure in itself would not violate the debtor's right to travel.
However, this understanding is different in relation to the seizure of passports, since the measure could, in a reflexive manner, violate the debtor's right to come and go, which is why the matter was brought to the Superior Court for consideration.
Thus, the STJ's understanding is that the seizure of a driver's license or passport as a condition for payment of a debt can be adopted as long as the decision is duly substantiated, observing the debtor's right to defense and respecting the principle of least burden that should guide executions.
As a recent example of the application of this measure, we have the case of soccer player Ronaldinho Gaúcho, who had his passport confiscated by the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul due to non-payment of fines related to environmental damage resulting from illegal construction in a preservation area.
Therefore, considering the recent decision of the STJ, in all enforcement actions, it is possible that restrictions may be imposed on the use of a driver's license or passport until the defendant satisfies the obligation to pay the amount due.
