News

Article 63, § 1, of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code (CPC), in its original version, provided that a venue election clause was only valid if contained in a written instrument and expressly referred to a specific legal transaction.

With the enactment of Law No. 14,879/2024, the provision underwent significant changes. In addition to the previous requirements, the clause must now also be connected to the domicile or residence of one of the parties or to the place where the obligation is to be performed.

The exception remains for consumer relations, provided that it benefits the consumer. The new wording also authorized judges to decline jurisdiction spontaneously whenever the legal requirements are not met.

Since then, the Courts have adopted divergent interpretations. Some understand that the new requirements apply only to contracts executed after the law’s entry into force, in respect of the principle of the perfected legal act and autonomy of intent. Others consider the filing date of the lawsuit relevant, applying the new rule to all claims filed after the legislative change, even if the contract predates it.

There are also decisions extending the application of the new rule broadly, regardless of the contract’s execution date or procedural stage.

This plethora of interpretations has generated significant legal uncertainty. For companies and lawyers, the lack of clarity regarding the competent jurisdiction at the time of filing lawsuits creates concrete risks: delays in injunctive relief analysis, additional costs, and even the need to refile actions due to invalidation of the venue election clause.

Given this scenario, there is an urgent need for consolidation of the issue by the higher courts in order to ensure stability, predictability, and confidence in legal relations.