Countries › Brazil › Guide › 14. Disputes › Foreign court judgments in Brazil: STJ homologation, letters rogatory and enforcing foreign debt instruments

Foreign court judgments in Brazil: STJ homologation, letters rogatory and enforcing foreign debt instruments

Argentina. For full detail on Argentina, go to The Argentine Thread.

Last verified: 2026-10-27 · Status: Stable

A foreign court decision has no effect in Brazil until the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) homologates it, and reciprocity is not required; the STJ checks six formal requirements and public policy but never reviews the merits. Foreign interim orders, including urgent relief granted without hearing the defendant, reach Brazil by letter rogatory with exequatur from the STJ, and homologated judgments are enforced in federal court. Foreign out of court enforcement titles such as promissory notes and signed debt instruments need no homologation if Brazil is the place of payment, which is often the fastest route against a Brazilian debtor.

USD figures use the Banco Central do Brasil PTAX selling rate of R$5.3346 per US dollar for 27 October 2026. The real moved sharply in late October (R$5.0377 on 23 October and R$5.5007 on 26 October), so conversions are for orientation only.

Key facts

Foreign judgments need homologation before taking effect	Yes CPC art. 961, as of 2015-03-16 · in force
Court that homologates foreign judgments	Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) CF art. 105 I i; CPC art. 960, as of 2015-03-16 · in force
Reciprocity required to homologate a foreign judgment	No CPC art. 26 § 2, as of 2015-03-16 · in force
Merits review of the foreign decision	No CPC art. 36 § 2, as of 2015-03-16 · in force
Court that enforces homologated foreign judgments	Federal first instance court CPC art. 965; CF art. 109 X, as of 2015-03-16 · in force
Foreign out of court enforcement titles payable in Brazil need homologation	No CPC art. 784 §§ 2 and 3, as of 2015-03-16 · in force

The rule

1. A foreign decision is effective in Brazil only after homologation of the foreign judgment or exequatur of a letter rogatory, unless a law or treaty provides otherwise. Final court decisions can be homologated, as can non judicial decisions that would be judicial under Brazilian law, and homologation can be partial. Homologation follows the treaties in force and the STJ Internal Rules, and the STJ holds this power under the Constitution. Reciprocity is not required for homologating a foreign judgment.Lei nº 13.105 of 16 March 2015 (Civil Procedure Code, CPC); Constituição Federal of 5 October 1988, CPC arts. 26 § 2, 960 caput and § 2, 961 caput and §§ 1 and 2; CF art. 105 item I letter i, 2015-03-16 official text · verified 2026-10-27

2. The decision must: be issued by a competent authority; be preceded by regular service of process, even if the defendant defaulted; be effective in the country where it was issued; not offend Brazilian res judicata; come with an official translation unless a treaty waives it; and not manifestly offend public policy. A decision on a matter reserved exclusively to Brazilian courts, such as actions on real estate located in Brazil, will not be homologated. The defence is limited to whether these requirements are met, and Brazilian courts may never review the merits of the foreign decision.
Cost to do it: STJ court costs (a fixed fee class under the STJ table), sworn translation and Brazilian counsel filing electronically.Lei nº 13.105 of 16 March 2015 (CPC), Arts. 23 item I, 36 §§ 1 and 2, 963 items I to VI, 964, 2015-03-16 official text · verified 2026-10-27

3. Foreign interlocutory decisions, including those granting urgent relief, are enforced through a letter rogatory that receives exequatur from the STJ. Urgent relief granted abroad without hearing the defendant can be enforced if the defendant is heard afterwards, and only the foreign court judges whether the matter is urgent. During homologation the STJ may itself grant urgent relief and allow provisional enforcement.Lei nº 13.105 of 16 March 2015 (CPC), Arts. 960 § 1, 961 § 3, 962 §§ 1 to 3, 2015-03-16 official text · verified 2026-10-27

4. Once homologated, the judgment is a judicial enforcement title; the debtor is summoned in the civil court to comply within 15 days, and enforcement proceeds in the competent federal first instance court under the rules for domestic judgments, with a certified copy of the homologation. Foreign tax judgments are homologated only where a treaty or a promise of reciprocity provides for it.
Cost to do it: From 1 January 2027 the federal fee to start judgment enforcement is 1 percent of the claim value, within R$193.20 and R$107,332.80 (Lei nº 15.498 Annex I letter i).
Example: Enforcing a homologated R$3,000,000 judgment in 2027: 1 percent fee, R$30,000; non payment in 15 days adds R$300,000 fine and R$300,000 fees (CPC art. 523 § 1). / Fee about US$5,624; fine and fees about US$56,237 each on about US$562,366.Lei nº 13.105 of 16 March 2015 (CPC); Constituição Federal of 5 October 1988, CPC arts. 515 item VIII and § 1, 961 § 4, 965; CF art. 109 item X, 2015-03-16 official text · verified 2026-10-27

5. Out of court enforcement titles issued abroad do not need homologation to be enforced in Brazil. They have enforcement force if they meet the formal requirements of the law of the place where they were made and Brazil is indicated as the place of performance. Enforcement titles include bills of exchange, promissory notes, duplicatas, debentures and cheques, public deeds, private documents signed by the debtor and 2 witnesses (witnesses are not needed for electronic titles whose integrity is confirmed by a signature provider) and contracts secured by mortgage or pledge.Lei nº 13.105 of 16 March 2015 (CPC), as amended by Lei nº 14.620 of 2023, Art. 784 items I to III and V and §§ 2 to 4, 2015-03-16 official text · verified 2026-10-27 · changed: Lei nº 14.620 of 2023 added CPC art. 784 § 4, waiving witnesses for electronically signed titles whose integrity is confirmed by the signature provider.

6. Within Mercosur, the Las Leñas Protocol lets judgments and arbitral awards from Argentina, Paraguay or Uruguay be recognized through letters rogatory sent via the Central Authority, provided they are authentic, translated, issued by a body competent under the requested state's rules, after proper service with right of defence, final or enforceable at origin and not manifestly contrary to public policy; no security for costs may be required because a party is a national or resident of another member.Decreto nº 2.067 of 12 November 1996 (Las Leñas Protocol), Protocol arts. 4, 19 and 20, 1996-11-12 official text · verified 2026-10-27

What you hold	Route	Key condition
Final foreign court judgment	STJ homologation, then federal court enforcement	Art. 963 requirements; no merits review (arts. 36 and 965)
Foreign interim or urgent order	Letter rogatory with STJ exequatur	Defendant heard at least afterwards (art. 962)
Foreign promissory note, bill of exchange or signed debt instrument	Direct execution in Brazil, no homologation	Valid under the law where made and Brazil named as place of payment (art. 784 §§ 2 and 3)
Mercosur judgment or award	Letter rogatory via Central Authority	Las Leñas Protocol art. 20 conditions
Judgment on Brazilian real estate	Not homologable	Exclusive Brazilian jurisdiction (arts. 23 I and 964)

Which route for which foreign document (CPC unless stated).

Worked example

A New York court enters a R$3,000,000 (about US$562,366) default judgment against a Brazilian distributor that was properly served. The creditor files for homologation at the STJ with the judgment, proof that it is effective in New York, proof of service and an official translation (CPC art. 963). The distributor cannot reargue the contract (art. 36 § 2). After homologation the creditor enforces in federal court (art. 965).
A Brazilian buyer signed a promissory note in Miami payable in São Paulo. Because the note is valid under Florida law and names Brazil as the place of payment, the holder can file an execution directly in Brazil without homologation (CPC art. 784 §§ 2 and 3); the debtor is summoned to pay in 3 days (art. 829).
An Argentine company with a Buenos Aires judgment against a Brazilian client sends it by letter rogatory through the Central Authority under the Las Leñas Protocol (art. 19) and cannot be asked for security for costs because it is Argentine (art. 4). For the Argentine side of such cases see The Argentine Thread guide.

Step by step

1. Before suing abroad, check where the defendant's assets are; if in Brazil, plan for homologation or, better, take a debt instrument payable in Brazil (CPC art. 784 § 3).
2. Keep proof of regular service on the Brazilian defendant; use the Hague Service Convention channel rather than mail, which Brazil objected to (see the cross border service page).
3. Obtain a certified copy of the judgment and proof it is final or effective, with an apostille and a sworn Portuguese translation.
4. File the homologation request at the STJ through Brazilian counsel; ask for urgent relief if assets may disappear (art. 961 § 3).
5. After homologation, start enforcement in the federal court with a certified copy of the homologation decision (art. 965).

Common traps

Serving a Brazilian defendant informally abroad: lack of regular service blocks homologation (CPC art. 963 II).
Seeking homologation of a judgment on Brazilian real estate, which is exclusive Brazilian jurisdiction (arts. 23 and 964).
Assuming a parallel foreign case stops a Brazilian one: it does not (art. 24), and if a Brazilian judgment becomes final first, the foreign judgment cannot be homologated against it (art. 963 IV), although a merely pending Brazilian case does not block homologation (art. 24 sole paragraph).
Missing the place of payment clause on a debt instrument, which forces you through a full lawsuit or homologation instead of direct execution (art. 784 § 3).
Forgetting the official translation, which is mandatory unless a treaty waives it (art. 963 V).

Sources

← Enforcing arbitral awards in Brazil: domestic awards, foreign awards and the New York ConventionInvestment protection and investor state disputes in Brazil: no ICSID, cooperation and facilitation agreements and contract arbitration →