The Superior Court of Justice decided that banks can close checking accounts of clients unilaterally, establishing an understanding based on Theme 1119. The decision of the 2nd Panel of the STJ goes against what is determined by the Consumer Defense Code, which establishes that establishments cannot deny services to anyone who is willing to pay for them.
The specific case judged involves a construction company that had seven checking accounts suspended unilaterally by the financial institution. The company claimed that a provision of the CDC guaranteed its right to maintain the accounts, but the panel decided against this interpretation.
Despite allowing unilateral closure, the STJ established that banks cannot act in any way they please. There are rules and limits defined by the norms of the Central Bank of Brazil and by Brazilian jurisprudence that must be respected.
The decision consolidates a position that already prevailed in both the 3rd Panel and the 4th Panel of the STJ. The issue was only judged by the 2nd Panel because cases on the matter continued arriving at the Court, making it necessary to standardize the understanding.
