The conclusion of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in a judgment on the succession of assets is that Article 1,790 of the Civil Code – which establishes differences between the share of the partner and that of the spouse – is unconstitutional.
That is, the Court understands that there is no element of discrimination that justifies the differentiated treatment between spouse and partner established by the Civil Code. The STF had already equated same-sex unions with ‘conventional’ ones, which implies using similar arguments in both cases.
After the 1988 Constitution, according to a justice in the case, two rules were enacted – Law 8,971/1994 and Law 9,278/1996 – which equated the succession legal regimes of marriage and of the stable union. The Civil Code came into force in 2003, altering the picture. This is because, according to the justice, the code was the result of a debate held in the 1970s and 1980s, prior to several matters that arose in society later on.
“Therefore, the Civil Code is from 2002, but it arrived late with respect to family matters,” said the justice. “When the Civil Code unequated marriage and stable unions, it brought about a regression and a hierarchization among families that the Constitution does not admit,” he added.
In the end, the following thesis was approved: “Under the constitutional system in force, the differentiation of the succession regime between spouses and partners is unconstitutional, and the regime established in Article 1,829 of the Civil Code must be applied in both cases.”
Read the complete information here.
Source: STF
← Back to blog