{"id":1916,"date":"2026-07-09T11:52:53","date_gmt":"2026-07-09T14:52:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/?p=1916"},"modified":"2026-07-22T12:04:55","modified_gmt":"2026-07-22T15:04:55","slug":"prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/","title":{"rendered":"The Federal Supreme Court Redefines the Rules on the Statute of Limitations in Administrative Improbity Actions"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

I. Purpose and Background<\/h2>\n

On July 1, 2026, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) concluded the judgment of Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs) No. 7156 and No. 7236, which challenged provisions of Law No. 14,230\/2021<\/a>, responsible for introducing significant amendments to the Administrative Improbity Act (Law No. 8,429\/1992).<\/a><\/p>\n

The judgment focused primarily on Article 23 of the Administrative Improbity Act, particularly the provision that reduced by half the period of the intercurrent statute of limitations following its interruption. Under the wording introduced in 2021, although the statutory limitation period was eight years, counted from the occurrence of the act, the interruption of the limitation period by certain procedural acts, such as the filing of the action or condemnatory judgments, caused the limitation period to restart for a period of four years.<\/p>\n

By majority vote, the STF declared the automatic reduction of the limitation period unconstitutional, holding that the rule undermined the effectiveness of administrative improbity actions and could result in the dismissal of a substantial number of cases before a final judicial decision. The Court’s central rationale was that the four-year period did not reflect the reality of the processing of these actions within the Brazilian Judiciary, since, as highlighted in the opinion delivered by the reporting Justice, Alexandre de Moraes, the average time between the filing of the action and the first-instance judgment exceeds five years. Consequently, the eight-year limitation period remains applicable to all events interrupting the statute of limitations, and the reduced period introduced by the 2021 reform is no longer applicable.<\/p>\n

At the same time, the Court established a maximum duration of 20 years for administrative improbity actions, seeking to balance the need to hold individuals accountable for acts harmful to the Public Administration with the constitutional guarantee of a reasonable length of proceedings and legal certainty. The proposal was put forward by Justice Flavio Dino, who stated that the absence of a defined time limit would be “incompatible with any principle of morality and with the functioning of the State.”<\/p>\n

This legal opinion aims to analyze the principal effects of the STF’s decision, particularly with respect to the statute of limitations applicable to administrative improbity actions, the temporal limit on their duration, and the practical impacts on pending cases and future proceedings.<\/p>\n

II. Constitutional Basis<\/h2>\n

The judgment of ADIs No. 7156 and No. 7236 required the STF to assess whether the amendments introduced by Law No. 14,230\/2021 were compatible with the constitutional framework governing liability for acts of administrative improbity. The discussion centered primarily on Article 37, caput<\/em> and Paragraph 4, of the Federal Constitution, which enshrines the principles of legality, impersonality, morality, publicity, and efficiency, while also providing for the imposition of sanctions upon public officials responsible for acts of administrative improbity.<\/p>\n

In examining the amendments to the statute of limitations under Law No. 8,429\/1992, the Court held that the legal framework governing limitation periods cannot, in practice, prevent the effective investigation and punishment of conduct harmful to the Public Administration. Although it is for the legislature to establish limitation periods and conditions governing the State’s sanctioning authority, such legislative power is constrained by the Constitution itself, particularly by the constitutional protection afforded to administrative morality and public assets.<\/p>\n

The Court also considered Article 5, Item LXXVIII, of the Federal Constitution, which guarantees everyone the right to a reasonable duration of judicial proceedings. The STF held that this constitutional provision cannot be interpreted in isolation but must instead be construed together with the need to ensure effective mechanisms for investigating and holding individuals accountable for acts of administrative improbity.<\/p>\n

III. What Changes<\/h2>\n

The core of the decision lies in the declaration of unconstitutionality of the provision introduced by Law No. 14,230\/2021 that reduced the limitation period from eight years to four years upon the recommencement of the limitation period following its interruption (Article 23, Paragraph 5). In addition, the STF established a maximum duration for administrative improbity actions. The principal changes are described below.<\/p>\n

1. Invalidation of the Reduction of the Limitation Period<\/h3>\n

The STF declared unconstitutional the provision that reduced by half the limitation period following its interruption. As a result, the eight-year limitation period established in Article 23 of the Administrative Improbity Act remains applicable even after any event interrupting the limitation period. The original wording of Paragraph 2 provided that: “once the statute of limitations has been interrupted, the limitation period shall recommence from the date of interruption for one-half of the period established in the caput<\/em> of this article.”<\/p>\n

According to the STF, this mechanism could lead to the premature dismissal of a significant number of administrative improbity actions, which have an average duration of five years.<\/p>\n

2. Establishment of a Maximum Time Limit for the Duration of Actions<\/h3>\n

Although it invalidated the reduction of the limitation period, the STF established that administrative improbity actions shall be subject to a maximum duration of 20 years. The proposal was put forward by Justice Flavio Dino, who stated that the absence of a defined time limit would be “incompatible with any principle of morality and with the functioning of the State.”<\/p>\n

Justice Dino himself suggested using the maximum 20-year period provided for in the Brazilian Penal Code as a benchmark, and the proposal was approved by the Full Court.<\/p>\n

3. Application to Pending Cases<\/h3>\n

The decision directly affects the analysis of limitation periods in pending administrative improbity actions that have not yet become final and binding. Proceedings that could previously have been barred under the four-year rule will once again be governed by the eight-year limitation period.<\/p>\n

IV. What Remains Unchanged<\/h2>\n

Although the decision altered the reduction provided for in Paragraph 5 of Article 23, the remaining aspects concerning the intercurrent statute of limitations<\/strong> remain unchanged, as do the other amendments introduced by Law No. 14,230\/2021. Among the principal provisions that remain in force are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • Events interrupting the statute of limitations:<\/strong> the interrupting events introduced by Law No. 14,230\/2021 remain valid, including the filing of the action, the publication of a condemnatory judgment, and condemnatory decisions rendered by appellate courts;<\/li>\n
  • The impossibility of liability for negligent administrative improbity:<\/strong> the requirement of intentional misconduct (dolo<\/em>) for the characterization of acts of administrative improbity remains in force, as previously recognized by the STF in earlier decisions;<\/li>\n
  • The sanctioning regime under the Administrative Improbity Act:<\/strong> the decision did not alter the penalties established by law, such as removal from public office, suspension of political rights, civil fines, and prohibition from contracting with the Government, all of which remain subject to the legal requirements applicable to each case; and<\/li>\n
  • The applicability of the statute of limitations to administrative improbity actions:<\/strong> the statute of limitations remains applicable to administrative improbity actions. The judgment merely redefined the manner in which the limitation period is calculated, while preserving the existence of temporal limits on the State’s authority to impose sanctions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

    V. Conclusion<\/h2>\n

    The judgment of ADIs No. 7156 and No. 7236 redefined the statute of limitations applicable to administrative improbity actions by declaring unconstitutional the automatic reduction of the limitation period to four years following its interruption. The STF preserved the eight-year limitation period even after any interrupting event but limited the overall duration of proceedings to 20 years. In doing so, the Court sought to reconcile the effective accountability for acts of administrative improbity with the constitutional guarantee of a reasonable duration of judicial proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    I. Purpose and Background On July 1, 2026, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) concluded the judgment […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1917,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1916","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-artigo"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nPrescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa: entenda a decis\u00e3o do STF que redefine os prazos prescricionais e limita a tramita\u00e7\u00e3o a 20 anos.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa: entenda a decis\u00e3o do STF que redefine os prazos prescricionais e limita a tramita\u00e7\u00e3o a 20 anos.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BRZ Advogados\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-09T14:52:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-22T15:04:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/yibei-geng-UdYbiywGeg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"brzadvogados\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"brzadvogados\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/\",\"name\":\"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/yibei-geng-UdYbiywGeg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-09T14:52:53+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-22T15:04:55+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#\/schema\/person\/11cc7dddfff8e2b74d96240f76e3111c\"},\"description\":\"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa: entenda a decis\u00e3o do STF que redefine os prazos prescricionais e limita a tramita\u00e7\u00e3o a 20 anos.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/yibei-geng-UdYbiywGeg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/yibei-geng-UdYbiywGeg-unsplash-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1920,\"caption\":\"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"In\u00edcio\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"STF redefine regras da prescri\u00e7\u00e3o nas a\u00e7\u00f5es de Improbidade Administrativa\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/\",\"name\":\"BRZ Advogados\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#\/schema\/person\/11cc7dddfff8e2b74d96240f76e3111c\",\"name\":\"brzadvogados\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7b9849547b5ff36a1f86aee5435f8087?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7b9849547b5ff36a1f86aee5435f8087?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"brzadvogados\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/author\/brzadvogados\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa","description":"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa: entenda a decis\u00e3o do STF que redefine os prazos prescricionais e limita a tramita\u00e7\u00e3o a 20 anos.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa","og_description":"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa: entenda a decis\u00e3o do STF que redefine os prazos prescricionais e limita a tramita\u00e7\u00e3o a 20 anos.","og_url":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/","og_site_name":"BRZ Advogados","article_published_time":"2026-07-09T14:52:53+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-22T15:04:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1920,"url":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/yibei-geng-UdYbiywGeg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"brzadvogados","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"brzadvogados","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/","url":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/","name":"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/yibei-geng-UdYbiywGeg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-09T14:52:53+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-22T15:04:55+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#\/schema\/person\/11cc7dddfff8e2b74d96240f76e3111c"},"description":"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa: entenda a decis\u00e3o do STF que redefine os prazos prescricionais e limita a tramita\u00e7\u00e3o a 20 anos.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/yibei-geng-UdYbiywGeg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/yibei-geng-UdYbiywGeg-unsplash-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1920,"caption":"Prescri\u00e7\u00e3o na improbidade administrativa"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/prescricao-improbidade-administrativa-stf\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"In\u00edcio","item":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"STF redefine regras da prescri\u00e7\u00e3o nas a\u00e7\u00f5es de Improbidade Administrativa"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#website","url":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/","name":"BRZ Advogados","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#\/schema\/person\/11cc7dddfff8e2b74d96240f76e3111c","name":"brzadvogados","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7b9849547b5ff36a1f86aee5435f8087?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7b9849547b5ff36a1f86aee5435f8087?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"brzadvogados"},"url":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/author\/brzadvogados\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1916"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1916"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1916\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1923,"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1916\/revisions\/1923"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1917"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1916"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1916"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/brzadvogados.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1916"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}