TSTSeptember 23, 2026· 5 min read

TST sets binding thesis: a stalled labor-claim enforcement proceeding can lapse, even with a judgment issued before 2017

In a repetitive-judgment incident, the Full Court defined when the creditor's inaction during the enforcement phase can lead to intercurrent prescription, with specific rules on personal notice and a chance to justify the delay before the proceeding is extinguished.

The Full Court of Brazil's Superior Labor Court (TST) ruled, in a session held on September 22, 2026, on Repetitive Appeal for Review Embargoes Incident (IncJulgRREmbRep) No. 0045200-20.2003.5.02.0042, setting a binding legal thesis on intercurrent prescription in labor-claim enforcement. The decision was reported in coverage published on September 23, 2026.

The thesis: intercurrent prescription can reach judgments issued before 2017

Under the thesis that was set, intercurrent prescription can reach even enforceable judgments issued before the 2017 Labor Reform, as long as the creditor's inaction in moving the enforcement proceeding forward stems from failure to comply with a court order issued after the reform. In other words, the relevant milestone is not necessarily the date of the judgment itself, but the date of the court order the creditor failed to comply with.

Requirements set by the thesisThe notice ordering the creditor to move the enforcement proceeding forward must be specific, not generic or automatic. In addition, the creditor must be notified personally, not just through counsel, and must have the opportunity to justify the delay before the judge extinguishes the proceeding for intercurrent prescription.

A different reading of TST Súmula 114

The traditional understanding drawn from TST Súmula 114 was that intercurrent prescription does not exist in labor proceedings. The thesis now set represents a narrower reading of that prohibition, especially in light of the changes the 2017 Labor Reform brought to the enforcement-of-judgment regime in the Labor Courts.

What this means for liabilities in the enforcement phase

The thesis is structurally important for anyone managing labor liabilities in the enforcement phase. Older proceedings, with a judgment issued before 2017, that stalled because of the creditor's inaction after a specific court order went unmet, can now be extinguished for intercurrent prescription, provided the requirements of personal notice and the right to justify the delay are met. Companies with proceedings "forgotten" in the enforcement-of-judgment phase should review that portfolio in light of the new thesis, which may reduce the risk provision in specific cases.

💡 How technology helps

Proceedings stalled in the enforcement phase fall within the portfolio review we perform as part of our Compliance, Audit & Outsourced-Workforce Management service and our labor-liability tracking. For a first, free read on your scenario, use the Nexus Free Risk Check.

Does your company have older proceedings stalled in the enforcement phase, with no recent action from the creditor? It is worth reviewing that portfolio in light of the TST's new thesis.