The CNJ’s Proposal for More Effective Enforcement: Provision No. 255/2026

It is widely acknowledged that the enforcement stage – whether the enforcement of court judgments or of extrajudicial instruments – has historically been the greatest bottleneck in the Brazilian judiciary. Successive editions of the CNJ’s Justiça em Números (Justice in Numbers) report show that congestion rates at this stage severely slow down proceedings, turning judgments into little more than paper rights. In response to this chronic problem, on August 19, 2026, the National Inspectorate of Justice (Corregedoria Nacional de Justiça), a body of Brazil’s National Council of Justice (CNJ), issued Provision No. 255/2026, which establishes the National Policy for Effective Enforcement and the National Consolidated Rules on Effective Enforcement.

The new rules go a step further, proposing a structural and technological overhaul of judicial debt collection in Brazil that applies to the enforcement of both judgments and extrajudicial instruments in general (tax enforcement proceedings and the enforcement of criminal sentences are excluded, unless otherwise specifically provided). However, the shift to this new digital, centralized ecosystem raises serious questions about operational efficiency, legal certainty, and the limits of fundamental rights and guarantees.

Originally set to take effect 30 days after publication, the Consolidated Rules will now come into force on February 16, 2027, under Provision No. 256/2026, which gave the courts 180 days to prepare. This leaves creditors and debtors a meaningful window to revisit their strategies in pending enforcement proceedings now.

I. Centralization and Technological Modernization: the PNAJ and the BNP

At the heart of the Provision are two major mandatory technology tools: the National Judicial Sales Platform (Plataforma Nacional de Alienações Judiciais – PNAJ) and the National Attachment Registry (Banco Nacional de Penhoras – BNP).

The PNAJ and standardized auctions: The fragmentation of sale notices and local auctioneer platforms has long resulted in information asymmetry and low sale rates. The PNAJ works as a single, court-wide “marketplace” through which all electronic judicial auctions and private sales must exclusively take place. The measure is likely to significantly increase competition and the liquidity of seized assets. On the other hand, centralization may squeeze out regional auctioneers who fail to adapt quickly to the new national accreditation requirements.

The BNP and the end of duplicate attachments: The National Attachment Registry aims to solve a long-standing operational problem: different courts not knowing that the same asset has already been attached elsewhere. By centralizing liens and attachments, the CNJ gives bona fide third parties greater transparency and streamlines the resolution of competing creditor claims.

II. Institutionalized Asset Tracing and Countering Asset Shielding

Another highlight of Provision No. 255/2026 is the requirement that all State Courts and Federal Regional Courts set up Asset Investigation Units (Núcleos de Pesquisa Patrimonial), empowered to request information from notary and registry offices, state commercial registries (Juntas Comerciais), and financial institutions, and to share searches already carried out in other cases. Asset searches will no longer be an isolated, clerical task for the judge handling the case, but an institutional intelligence function of the court.

The express focus on identifying nominees and front persons – popularly known in Brazil as “laranjas” – and on mapping corporate groups, which may support a subsequent piercing of the corporate veil, shows that the CNJ is aware of how sophisticated fraudulent conveyances aimed at defeating enforcement have become in Brazil. Automating these searches through integrated tools speeds up the process, but also raises concerns about pre-emptive asset freezes against companies without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, which calls for great caution from judges to avoid irreversible harm to legitimate businesses.

III. Coordinated Management of Large Debtors: Efficiency vs. First-in-Time Priority

The Provision consolidates and regulates joint enforcement management regimes – such as the Special Payment Plan, the Centralized Enforcement Regime, the Special Forced Enforcement Regime, and the Strategic Enforcement Coordination Regime – which may be combined and will be supported by the new Enforcement Support Centers. Handling large debtors on a consolidated, aggregate basis replaces the inefficient model of thousands of individual enforcement actions fighting over the scraps of a debtor’s assets.

Centralizing enforcement proceedings against the same debtor makes attachment measures more efficient. The criticism, however, concerns how payments are allocated among creditors. Coordinated pro rata distribution may weaken the first-in-time priority rule for attachments (prior tempore, potior jure) set out in the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure – and it should not be forgotten that a provision, being an administrative act, cannot override a statutory rule. Reconciling the collective efficiency the CNJ is aiming for with existing substantive and procedural law will be one of the main challenges for the courts in the coming years.

IV. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence and Human Oversight

The Provision encourages the use of algorithms and artificial intelligence to cross-reference financial and tax data, identify large debtors, and support asset searches. Mindful, however, of the risk of creating an AI-driven surveillance state, the CNJ has included a safeguard: mandatory human oversight of all judicial decisions.

The line between technology as a mere support tool and the covert delegation of judicial decision-making to an algorithm is a fine one – and, for litigators, an increasingly visible one. Lawyers will need to closely scrutinize the reports generated by these tools to ensure that due process is respected.

Conclusion: A Decisive Step That Calls for Vigilance

At least on paper, and judging by what it sets out to achieve, CNJ Provision No. 255/2026 appears to be a bold and necessary regulatory milestone. It seeks to move enforcement away from a handcrafted, case-by-case approach dependent on the initiative of individual judges, and into an era of data intelligence and institutional cooperation.

Its success, however, will depend on two factors: the courts’ ability to adapt their budgets and technology, and prudence in the use of these tools. Enforcement must be effective, but never at the expense of constitutional guarantees. Time and day-to-day practice in the courts will tell whether the new Consolidated Rules deliver the intended effectiveness or instead give rise to a new wave of satellite litigation over the limits of enforcement itself.