A lei nº 14.181/21 (lei do Superendividamento) à luz do mínimo existencial e da dignidade da pessoa humana.

Abstract

This research intends to analyze the new law 14.181/21 (Law of Overindebtedness) in light of the principles of the dignity of the human being and the existential minimum, being justified, mainly, by the relevant legal and social interest of the theme. It has as specific objectives the study of the historical context and the conceptualization of the principles mentioned above, the analysis of the law of over-indebtedness and its normative definitions, effects, notions and prevention. Still, it proceeds with the inquiry regarding the regulation of the existential minimum based on judicial decisions and on the history of existing debates about what is the minimum amount so that a life with dignity may be preserved. In the same way, the problem is analyzed through the prism of other pertinent legislations such as the Federal Constitution, the Consumer Defense Code and the presidential decree 11.150/22. Furthermore, the present work uses as methods of approach the deductive and qualitative models, while, in relation to the objective and procedure, the exploratory and bibliographical models are glimpsed, respectively. Furthermore, the exegetical-legal and the historical-evolutionary methods are also used. Thus, the study made it possible to achieve the desired objectives, because it allowed an exploration of the historical context of the problem, bringing up its conceptions throughout time and according to different societies, in other times. Besides, even though the conceptualization is abstract, it was possible to find a definition for the existential minimum and for the dignity of the human being through the presentation of a history of debates. Furthermore, the present study also reached its purpose when doing a careful investigation of the Law of Over-indebtedness, bringing its main characteristics and, equally, seeking the determination of a quantum for the essential minimum based on judicial decisions. Finally, the presentation of several decisions, regulations and data on the Brazilian reality of over-indebtedness is emphasized, leading to the conclusion that even though there are regulations that normatize the quantitative value of a minimum, the jurisprudence is contrary to accepting this amount fixed in its judgments, essentially because it understands that the amount is inferior and derisory for the maintenance of a minimally dignified life that assures fundamental rights to individuals.