STF Minister Flávio Dino ruled on Monday (16) that compulsory retirement for judges is unconstitutional after the 2019 Pension Reform, in a specific case. The decision raises questions about its scope and may concentrate more power in the Supreme Court. STJ and CNJ members note a lack of clarity.
In a ruling issued on March 16, 2026, STF Minister Flávio Dino barred compulsory retirement for judges in a specific disciplinary administrative process. According to Dino, the 2019 Pension Reform removed this punishment from the list of administrative penalties for lifetime magistrates, rendering it unconstitutional. He suggested 'disponibilidade' – a temporary removal – instead, and for serious infractions, an AGU lawsuit for job loss via STF. For CNJ cases of serious breaches, judicial competence would lie with the Supreme Court, which FGV Direito SP professor Rubens Glezer calls 'a gigantic instrument of power concentration in the STF' with 'universalizing pretension,' though legally binding only on the case at hand. Lawyers like Roberto Dias from FGV-SP emphasize the monocratic decision is limited to the process, unless set as precedent or via plenary ADPF. Administrative law expert Francisco Zardo argues it belongs to Congress or the STF plenary. CNJ and STF President Edson Fachin contacted Corregedor Mauro Campbell to outline next steps, viewing it as aligned with precedents since 2019. However, STJ and CNJ members anonymously criticize the lack of effect modulation and temporal framework, fearing reviews of past punishments. One magistrate said STJ colleagues are 'astonished.' CNJ data shows 39 compulsory retirements applied since 2020, including Marcelo Bretas, Ludmila Lins Grilo, and Siro Darlan, despite Dino's interpretation. The case of STJ Minister Marco Buzzi, accused of sexual harassment, raises uncertainties. A bill by Dino as senator on the topic advanced in the Senate's CCJ the prior week.
