The term ad infinitum, of Latin origin, designates perpetuity or the absence of temporal limits in legal relationships, proceedings, or obligations. In the Brazilian legal system, its application is predominantly rejected, especially in Procedural and Administrative Law, due to the principles of legal certainty, the reasonable duration of proceedings, and the prohibition against the perpetuity of binding obligations.
Concept and Foundation
The concept of ad infinitum (to infinity) in Law translates to a situation of temporal indeterminacy or perenniality that, as a rule, conflicts with the finite and teleological nature of legal norms. As an institute, it is not configured as an autonomous category, but as a state of fact or law that the legal system seeks to exhaust. The legal nature of the institute, when invoked to describe perpetuity, acts as the antithesis of the principle of legal certainty, since the Rule of Law presupposes the stabilization of relationships and the possibility of extinguishing disputes.
Historical Origin and Evolution
The root of the expression dates back to Roman Law, where concerns regarding the duration of obligations and the succession of rights already imposed limits. In Comparative Law, overcoming perpetuity is a hallmark of legal modernity. In the Brazilian legal system, doctrinal evolution has consolidated the understanding that the lack of a final term for certain obligations—notably in the Law of Obligations and Public Law—infringes upon individual liberty and state efficiency. The transition from a model of perpetuity (common in feudal or manorial regimes) to a model of temporality is the foundation of contemporary Civil Law.
Practical Application and Jurisprudential Understanding
The application of ad infinitum faces insurmountable obstacles in the jurisprudence of Superior Courts:
- Civil Procedural Law: The procedural progress cannot be ad infinitum. The principle of the reasonable duration of proceedings, enshrined in Art. 5, LXXVIII of the 1988 Federal Constitution, imposes a temporal limit on the exercise of jurisdiction. Preclusion and res judicata are mechanisms that prevent the discussion of a right from lasting indefinitely.
- Administrative Law: The Supreme Federal Court (STF), in several rulings (e.g., ADI 2.449), reaffirms the impossibility of perpetual functional or contractual ties with the Public Administration without due constitutional support, prohibiting situations that extend ad infinitum without proper legal compliance.
- Civil and Labor Law: Consolidated jurisprudence (TST and STJ) prohibits the perpetuity of restrictive clauses on rights, such as in non-compete agreements or obligations to do that, by their nature, cannot bind an individual for life or indefinitely, under penalty of nullity for violating human dignity.
Related Principles and Doctrinal Divergences
Modern legal doctrine, based on the economic analysis of Law, identifies ad infinitum as a generator of inefficiency. Principles such as legal certainty and the stability of social relations act as barriers. Divergences arise only in specific institutes, such as the imprescriptibility of certain crimes (Art. 5, XLII and XLIV, CF/88) or the protection of fundamental rights, where the protection may be considered perennial, although the process that ensures it must be swift.
Contemporary Relevance and Impacts
Contemporary times require the mitigation of any interpretation that leads to ad infinitum. In the current scenario of Digital Law and data regulation, the discussion on the "right to be forgotten" exemplifies the rejection of informational perpetuity. The Brazilian legal system, through Law 13.709/2018 (LGPD), establishes deadlines for data processing, refuting the idea that information storage can occur indefinitely. Therefore, ad infinitum acts today as a negative concept: a state that the Law must avoid to ensure the effectiveness of justice and the freedom of rights holders.
Legal and Jurisprudential References
- BRAZIL. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil of 1988. Art. 5, clauses XXXVI (acquired right) and LXXVIII (reasonable duration of proceedings).
- BRAZIL. Law No. 13.105, of March 16, 2015. Code of Civil Procedure. Art. 4 (principle of the primacy of merits judgment and reasonable duration).
- SUPREME FEDERAL COURT. ADI 2449. Rapporteur Justice Sepúlveda Pertence. Jurisprudence on the prohibition of the perpetuation of positions and obligations.
- SUPERIOR LABOR COURT. Precedent (Súmula) No. 372 (on financial stability and the prohibition of harmful contractual changes, limiting the perpetuity of bonuses).
- BRAZIL. Law No. 13.709/2018 (General Data Protection Law - LGPD). Art. 15 (limitation of the data retention period).
