Letters Rogatory and the Performance of Foreign Judicial Acts in Brazil

1. Territoriality, cooperation and outgoing or incoming requests

Classification as active or passive takes Brazil’s position as its reference: an active request is issued by a national authority for performance abroad; a passive request comes from a foreign authority for an act in Brazil. The same request is outgoing for the state of origin and incoming for the receiving state. Transmission channels and formalities must be assessed accordingly, since Brazil’s reception requirements cannot automatically be imposed on the requested country. [2] [4]

The request’s instrumental nature explains its connection with the original proceedings. Where a particular act is sought, cooperation does not transfer the entire dispute to the requested court. Some evidence instruments, however, also cover contemplated proceedings; an action already pending abroad is not a universal defining condition of every letter or assistance request. [2] [10]

Legal scholarship may understand cooperation through international comity, but Brazil’s legal framework is not merely an optional courtesy between sovereigns. The CPC makes applicable treaties governing instruments and, in their absence, permits reciprocity expressed through diplomatic channels. Recognition of foreign judgments is expressly exempt from that reciprocity requirement. [2]

2. The historical development of exequatur and present jurisdiction

Law No. 221 of 20 November 1894 marks the documentary institutionalisation of prior review. Article 12, § 4, provided for exequatur by the Federal Government and performance by sectional judges. The same provision separately addressed foreign judgments, whose recognition fell to the Supreme Federal Court, subject to special treaty provisions. The distinction between authorising an act’s effect and carrying it out already appeared in that arrangement. [12]

Article 77 of the 1934 Constitution assigned exequatur for foreign courts’ requests to the President of the Supreme Court. Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004 transferred recognition of foreign judgments and exequatur to the Superior Tribunal de Justiça. Those powers now appear in Article 105(I)(i) of the Constitution; execution of an authorised request or recognised judgment belongs to federal judges under Article 109(X). [1] [13] [14]

That history prevents confusion between exequatur and the practical act: the former authorises the foreign act to produce the effect allowed in Brazil; the latter actually performs the service, takes the evidence or implements the permitted measure. Institutional development likewise does not establish a present prohibition on every adjudicatory or enforcement act. The 2015 CPC expressly governs enforcement of foreign interlocutory and urgent decisions. [2]

The procedural regime must be consulted in its current form. The 1973 CPC is no longer the governing Code, and STJ Resolution No. 9/2005 belongs to the historical framework later incorporated into the Court’s Internal Rules. The present position requires reading Articles 26 to 41 and 960 to 965 of the CPC together with the RISTJ, whose relevant chapter comprises Articles 216-A to 216-X, and the applicable treaty. [2] [15]

3. Letters rogatory, recognition and direct assistance

Letters rogatory differ from cartas precatórias used for domestic cooperation and do not invariably presuppose a final judgment. Under the CPC, a foreign interlocutory decision is enforced through letters rogatory; recognition of a foreign decision follows its own action, unless a treaty provides otherwise. The rule requiring recognition or exequatur before effectiveness admits express statutory and treaty exceptions. [2]

Direct assistance applies where the measure does not derive directly from a foreign judicial decision requiring Brazilian recognition review. If the measure can be performed administratively, the Central Authority arranges compliance through the competent body. Where judicial action is required, the request goes to the federal court at the place of performance under Articles 32 to 34 of the CPC. Participation by the AGU or Public Prosecutor’s Office depends on the statutory framework and the authority performing the central function. [2]

The sender’s label does not determine classification. In the case reported in STJ Case-law Bulletin No. 875/2026, the Special Court required recognition review of a foreign decision ordering a socioeconomic report in parental-responsibility proceedings. Its conclusion concerned the judicial origin and effect of that order, even though preparing the report would not, viewed alone, require a Brazilian court order. The ruling addressed that particular situation without abolishing direct assistance or distinct treaty procedures. [16]

In practice, selection should answer three questions: is recognition of a decision sought, enforcement of an interlocutory measure, or an original Brazilian act assisting foreign proceedings? Identifying the objective avoids seeking recognition for mere service or using direct assistance to circumvent a legally required effectiveness review. The conclusion follows from reading the CPC’s categories together, rather than a discretionary choice by the interested party. [2]

4. Service, evidence and enforcement measures

Cooperation may concern service, notification, taking evidence, an urgent measure or other permitted assistance. The general breadth of Article 27 of the CPC does not turn every treaty into a universal instrument: the 1965 Service Convention governs communications in civil or commercial matters; the 1970 Evidence Convention concerns evidence and excludes service and enforcement or protective measures from its concept of other judicial acts. [2] [5] [10]

In criminal matters, communication and evidence-gathering functions remain distinct. The CPP provides for service through letters rogatory on an accused person abroad at a known address, with the prescription effect in Article 368, and addresses service in foreign legations in Article 369. Articles 780 to 786 must be read subject to treaties and present constitutional jurisdiction. Criminal cooperation cannot be brought within conventions confined to civil or commercial matters merely by analogy. [1] [3]

Restrictive or asset-related measures require examination of the decision, legal basis and appropriate instrument. The current CPC contains no general prohibition on civil letters rogatory with enforcement effects. Article 962 allows enforcement of foreign urgent measures and provides for letters rogatory for interlocutory decisions, including those made without a prior hearing where a subsequent opportunity to be heard is secured. This does not mean automatic freezing, direct access to Brazilian judicial systems or enforcement of every final monetary judgment through the same route. [2]

Brazil’s exclusive jurisdiction also requires precision. Articles 23 and 964 of the CPC prevent foreign decisions from intruding on matters reserved to national jurisdiction; merely locating an asset in Brazil does not dispense with examining the request’s object and effect. Service or evidence-taking does not itself amount to recognition of the merits decision: Article 13 of the Service Convention and Article 12 of the Evidence Convention have their own rules on refusal based on exclusive jurisdiction. Every mention of land cannot be converted into an undifferentiated veto on cooperation. [2] [5] [10]

5. Transmission channels and the 2026 framework

A request need not enter Brazil through diplomatic channels. Where a treaty applies, its designated Central Authority, substantive scope and permitted channels must be observed. The Ministry of Justice and Public Security acts as Central Authority under the instrument or the CPC’s residual rule; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs retains its diplomatic transmission functions. Their roles cannot be presumed identical. [2] [4] [5]

In the absence of a bilateral or multilateral agreement, Interministerial MRE/MJ Order No. 501/2012 governs the residual outgoing and incoming flow in civil and criminal matters. It provides for incoming requests received diplomatically to pass from the MRE to the Ministry of Justice, and outgoing requests to be sent to the MRE for diplomatic transmission. Where a treaty exists, the Order applies only subsidiarily and consistently with the special regime. [4]

For outgoing requests covered by the Hague Service and Evidence Conventions, MJSP Order No. 1.195/2026 regulates transmission by the competent Brazilian authority directly to the requested state’s Central Authority. Simplification depends on the Convention’s applicability and formalities; it does not generally authorise direct transmission to any foreign judge or alter incoming procedures and other treaty channels. [8] [9]

Article 2 of the Order requires registration of data before transmission and an update after a response, with its own exception for the stated extrajudicial notification. DRCI administrative guidance, updated on 9 October 2026, describes simultaneous, separate electronic communication for institutional registration. Those requirements must be distinguished: operational guidance does not amend the legal text. The receiving authority’s address and acceptance of electronic transmission must be checked in the particular case. [8] [9]

6. Supporting documents, language and authenticity

Documentation follows the requested act’s nature. For Brazilian letters, Article 260 of the CPC identifies the originating and executing courts, the full pleading, order and power of attorney, the intended act and the judge’s signature, together with any necessary annexes. Order No. 501/2012 details identification, address, purpose and supporting material within its residual scope. A complete judgment is not required where the request merely seeks initial service in undecided proceedings. [2] [4]

A special regime may prescribe its own form and supporting documents. Under the Service Convention, the annexed model is compulsory and the request must include the document or its copy under Article 3. Under the Evidence Convention, Article 3 specifies proceedings details, evidence and, where relevant, persons, questions, documents and special procedures. Additional information useful for locating someone must not be converted into universal requirements absent from the instrument. [5] [10]

Translation and authentication are different questions. An outgoing request requires checking the language demanded by the requested state and treaty. For documents Brazil receives through a Central Authority or diplomatic channels, Article 41 of the CPC treats the documents, including Portuguese translations, as authentic without sworn certification, authentication or legalisation, subject to reciprocity where necessary. This does not remove required translation: Brazil has declared that service documents sent to its Central Authority must have a Portuguese version, with an exception concerning the form. [2] [5] [6]

Hearings, expert evidence and locating persons require documented planning. Questions, a sufficient address and identification of the proceedings facilitate performance; any need for originals, expenses or special form depends on the act and legal basis. The advance periods recommended by Order No. 501/2012 are not international completion deadlines. Urgency must be explained and put through the appropriate route, without presuming documentary exemptions or compliance by a unilaterally chosen date. [2] [4] [10]

7. Recognition review, defence and performance in Brazil

Before the STJ, letters rogatory follow an adversarial procedure with due process. The defence concerns the requirements allowing the ruling to have effect in Brazil, without reconsidering the foreign merits. Public-policy review requires manifest incompatibility; a mere difference between foreign and Brazilian legislation does not itself turn limited recognition review into a rehearing of the dispute. [2]

The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office’s submissions, where provided for, neither replace the Court’s decision nor assign practical execution of the request to that body. Authenticity, clarity, required regularity and sovereignty or public-policy objections must be examined against the measure and instrument. In urgent cases covered by Article 962, the opportunity to be heard may follow on the statutory terms; that possibility does not eliminate the defence. [2] [15] [16]

Once exequatur is granted, the act is sent to the competent federal court for performance. Where a recognised judgment or foreign decision granted exequatur requires execution, Article 965 governs proceedings before that court with the corresponding documents. STJ authorisation does not prove that service occurred, evidence was taken or assets were reached: performance and its certification are separate stages with their own safeguards and limits. [1] [2]

8. Postal service: historical precedents and the treaty regime

The recipient’s nationality does not determine the validity of service on someone in Brazil for foreign proceedings. Location, the applicable instrument, transmission method and an effective opportunity to defend matter. Under the 1965 Service Convention, Brazil opposed the methods in Articles 8 and 10, including Article 10(a)’s postal channel. That provision cannot generally authorise replacing regular cooperation with direct correspondence. [5] [6]

Historically cited precedents require contextual reading. SEC No. 919/EX, decided on 19 October 2005, was reported by the STJ in a case involving notification through a registry of deeds and documents, drafted in a foreign language, instead of letters rogatory. The headnote in SEC No. 4.891/EX, decided on 5 December 2011, records a status matter and correspondence without the recipient’s signature, with recognition refused. Those facts support neither general permission for postal service nor treating the 2005 judgment as a subsequent revision of a 2011 decision. [17] [18]

Present assessment must begin with the treaty in force between the states and their declarations, without mechanically transplanting solutions predating the 1965 Convention’s operation in Brazil. The certificate of service and Convention safeguards in default cases serve distinct functions. Receipt of a communication, recognition of its effects in the original proceedings and eventual recognition of the final judgment are related but legally separate questions. [5] [7]

9. Defining the request and verifying completion

Before transmission, the measure must be sufficiently specified for the Brazilian or foreign body to understand what to perform and why. Mixing service, a generic asset investigation and final enforcement in one application may obscure distinct requirements. Operationally, each measure should be identified and checked against its legal basis, without presuming that authorising one permits the others. [2] [4] [10]

After transmission, monitor receipt by the correct authority, any request for additional material and the document proving the outcome. Under the Evidence Convention, Article 13 provides for return through the channel used and notification of reasons for non-execution; for service, the certificate follows Article 6. A transmission record proves an administrative stage, rather than performance of the act or guaranteed future effectiveness. [5] [8] [10]

Frequently asked questions

Official references

1. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil. Articles 5(LIV) and (LV), 105(I)(i) and 109(X): due process, STJ exequatur and execution in the federal courts.
2. Code of Civil Procedure — Law No. 13.105/2015. Articles 23 to 41, 260 to 263 and 960 to 965: international jurisdiction, cooperation, documents, recognition review, urgency and performance.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure — Decree-Law No. 3.689/1941. Articles 368, 369 and 780 to 786: service and criminal cooperation, subject to treaties and present constitutional jurisdiction.
4. Interministerial MRE/MJ Order No. 501 of 21 March 2012. Articles 1 to 9: residual transmission, identification and supporting documents; subsidiary application where an agreement exists.
5. 1965 Hague Service Convention — Decree No. 9.734/2019. Decree, Articles 1 and 2; Convention, Articles 1 to 7, 10, 13, 15, 16 and 28: scope, form, language, reservations and safeguards.
6. HCCH — Brazil’s declarations and reservations to the Service Convention. Reservations to Articles 8 and 10 and declarations on translation and certificates.
7. HCCH — status of the 1965 Service Convention. Official table and Article 28 mechanism for checking application between the states concerned.
8. MJSP Order No. 1.195 of 7 April 2026. Articles 1 to 5: direct outgoing transmission to foreign Central Authorities under the Service and Evidence Conventions, registration and subsidiary application of Order No. 501/2012.
9. MJSP/DRCI — Forwarding Authorities: Service and Evidence. Administrative guidance on direct transmission, separate registration, contacts and checking foreign requirements.
10. 1970 Hague Evidence Convention — Decree No. 9.039/2017. Decree and Convention, Articles 1 to 14, 23 and 39: evidential scope, form, language, execution, limits and acceptance of accessions.
11. HCCH — status of the 1970 Evidence Convention. Official table and acceptance of accessions under Article 39.
12. Law No. 221 of 20 November 1894. Article 12, § 4: historical provision for Federal Government exequatur and performance by sectional judges.
13. 1934 Constitution. Article 77: historical exequatur jurisdiction of the President of the Supreme Court.
14. Constitutional Amendment No. 45/2004. Amendment of Articles 102 and 105: transfer of recognition and exequatur to the STJ.
15. STJ — rules concerning recognition and exequatur. Official indication of the regime under Articles 216-A to 216-X of the RISTJ and Articles 960 to 965 of the CPC.
16. STJ — Case-law Bulletin No. 875 of 3 February 2026. Note on a foreign decision requiring a socioeconomic report and the need for recognition review.
17. STJ — judicial document in SEC No. 8.396/PT, published on 11/12/2014. Headnote, report and opinion; page 6 reproduces the headnote in SEC No. 4.891/EX, decided on 5/12/2011 and published on 2/2/2012.
18. STJ — 2005 annual bulletin, Bulletin No. 265. Note Recognition. Foreign judgment. Service, page 162 of the PDF: SEC No. 919/EX, reporting Justice Paulo Gallotti, decided on 19/10/2005.