Medidas executivas atípicas e a efetividade da execução civil: limites constitucionais e critérios de aplicação do art. 139, IV, do CPC

Abstract

Brazilian civil enforcement has historically presented a paradox: while the cognizance phase of the process has evolved in terms of procedural guarantees and rationality, the enforcement phase remains marked by ineffectiveness, generating frustration for creditors regarding the satisfaction of rights already judicially recognized. The Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure of 2015, by introducing mechanisms aimed at ensuring effectiveness—particularly Article 139, IV—grants judges the possibility of adopting atypical measures—coercive, mandatory, or subrogatory—even if not expressly provided by law, in order to ensure the enforcement of judicial decisions. Such measures, including the suspension of driving licenses, seizure of passports, and blocking of credit cards, have sparked controversy due to the lack of objective limits and their potential impact on the debtor’s fundamental rights, such as dignity, privacy, and freedom of movement. This study proposes shifting the traditional focus, usually centered on the protection of the debtor, to the perspective of the creditor, highlighting the legitimacy and necessity of responsibly using atypical measures in light of the persistent ineffectiveness of enforcement. National jurisprudence is analyzed, revealing divergences and uncertainties that affect legal security, and interpretative criteria are suggested to balance the protection of the debtor’s fundamental rights with the effectiveness of judicial enforcement. The research demonstrates that the appropriate adoption of atypical measures can make civil enforcement an effective, predictable, and balanced instrument, ensuring that judicial protection is not merely declaratory but fully realizable