Sergio Moro · Lula · Dilma Rousseff · Teori Zavascki
On March 16, 2016 Moro ordered the interception of Lula's phone to stop at 11:12:22 a.m.; at 1:32 p.m. a dialogue with then-President Dilma Rousseff was captured, and Moro lifted the secrecy of the conversations on 3/16 and 3/17. The Presidency of the Republic filed Rcl 23.457 alleging usurpation of the Supreme Federal Court (STF)'s jurisdiction. On June 13, 2016 Teori Zavascki overturned Moro's decisions that lifted the secrecy and declared null the conversation captured after the order to stop, without ruling on the legitimacy of the interception itself. Moro apologized to the STF on March 29, 2016. The Special Court of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF4) dismissed, on September 22, 2016, a complaint against Moro by 13 votes to 1.
On June 13, 2016, Teori Zavascki granted Rcl 23.457 in part: he recognized the violation of the STF's jurisdiction and set aside the 13th Court's decisions of March 16, 2016 (event 135) and March 17, 2016 (event 140) that lifted secrecy over the conversations; he recognized the nullity of the content of the conversations captured after the order to stop the interceptions; and ordered returned to the 13th Court the cases that did not involve authorities with special forum.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · pp. 20-22, item 15 · open original ↗
The TRF-4 Special Court closed, by 13 votes to 1, on September 22, 2016, the complaint by a group of 19 lawyers (according to Conjur) against Moro over the release of the conversation between Dilma and Lula; the rapporteur, Rômulo Pizzolatti, found Lava Jato to be an 'unprecedented' case in Brazilian law and saw no sign of a disciplinary violation; Rogério Favreto dissented.
Source: Lava jato não precisa seguir regras de casos comuns, diz TRF-4 — Consultor Jurídico, Sept. 23, 2016 · body of the article · open original ↗
Complaint 23.457, filed by the President of the Republic through the AGU, alleged usurpation of the STF's jurisdiction because, in the interception authorized by the 13th Court against Lula, conversations with the President of the Republic (an authority with special forum) were captured and the decision to release them at first instance would be flawed by absolute lack of jurisdiction.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · pp. 1-2 · open original ↗
In an official letter to the STF, sent on March 29, 2016 at the request of Teori Zavascki, Moro asked the Court for 'respectful apologies' for the decision of March 16, 2016 and stated that it was not his intention to cause such effects.
Source: Moro pede desculpas ao STF e diz que liberação de grampos não teve cunho político — Migalhas, Mar. 29, 2016 · excerpts of the letter reproduced · open original ↗
In the same letter, Moro maintained that the interception had just cause and legal support and that the court's usual practice was to lift secrecy over telephone interceptions.
Source: Moro pede desculpas ao STF e diz que liberação de grampos não teve cunho político — Migalhas, Mar. 29, 2016 · excerpts of the letter reproduced · open original ↗
In reviewing his order, cited in Teori's decision, Moro wrote that he had not previously noticed the point of the 13:32 dialogue and did not see greater relevance in it, maintaining what he had decided.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · pp. 16-17, item 10 · open original ↗
The Prosecutor General of the Republic gave an opinion that the complaint should be dismissed in full, finding that, even if the lifting of secrecy at first instance had been improper, this would not amount to usurpation of the STF's jurisdiction.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · p. 4 · open original ↗
| Date | Body and case | Sphere | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mar. 22, 2016 | STF · Rapporteur justice (preliminary injunction) Rcl 23.457 | Constitutional review | Preliminary injunction granted that suspended and brought to the Supreme Federal Court (STF) the request to break confidentiality and related proceedings; endorsed by the full court (Plenary) on March 31, 2016.Sources (1)The preliminary injunction was granted on March 22, 2016 and endorsed by the Plenary on March 31, 2016, ordering the suspension and the referral to the STF of the request to break secrecy 5006205-98.2016.4.04.7000/PR and other proceedings. Judicial or administrative decisionProven in a document Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · p. 3 · open original ↗ |
| June 13, 2016 | STF · Justice Teori Zavascki Rcl 23.457 | Constitutional review | Complaint upheld in part: violation of the Supreme Federal Court (STF)'s jurisdiction recognized, the decisions of 3/16 and March 17, 2016 that lifted secrecy overturned, and the content of conversations captured after the order to stop declared null; cases without officials entitled to special jurisdiction sent back to the 13th Federal Court.Sources (2)On June 13, 2016, Teori Zavascki granted Rcl 23.457 in part: he recognized the violation of the STF's jurisdiction and set aside the 13th Court's decisions of March 16, 2016 (event 135) and March 17, 2016 (event 140) that lifted secrecy over the conversations; he recognized the nullity of the content of the conversations captured after the order to stop the interceptions; and ordered returned to the 13th Court the cases that did not involve authorities with special forum. Judicial or administrative decisionProven in a document Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · pp. 20-22, item 15 · open original ↗ The STF news item of June 13, 2016 reports that Teori ordered the cases in which Lula is under investigation sent to the first-instance court, set aside the decisions of March 16 and March 17, 2016 and annulled the content of the conversations recorded after the order to stop. Judicial or administrative decisionSeveral independent sources Source: STF envia investigações contra Lula para primeira instância — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · body of the news item · open original ↗ |
| Sept. 22, 2016 | TRF4 · Special Court Representação de grupo de 19 advogados (segundo o Conjur) contra Moro (número não informado) | Disciplinary sphere | By 13 votes to 1 (dissent by Rogério Favreto), the complaint was dismissed; the rapporteur, Rômulo Pizzolatti, saw no sign of a disciplinary offense.Sources (1)The TRF-4 Special Court closed, by 13 votes to 1, on September 22, 2016, the complaint by a group of 19 lawyers (according to Conjur) against Moro over the release of the conversation between Dilma and Lula; the rapporteur, Rômulo Pizzolatti, found Lava Jato to be an 'unprecedented' case in Brazilian law and saw no sign of a disciplinary violation; Rogério Favreto dissented. Judicial or administrative decisionSingle source Source: Lava jato não precisa seguir regras de casos comuns, diz TRF-4 — Consultor Jurídico, Sept. 23, 2016 · body of the article · open original ↗ |
“Conviction” and “acquittal” apply only in the sphere indicated: a civil or disciplinary decision is not a criminal conviction.
Cases: Claim 23.457 (STF) — release of the Lula–Dilma conversations
solicito desde logo respeitosas escusas a este Egrégio Supremo Tribunal Federal.
Portal translation: I immediately request respectful apologies to this Honorable Supreme Federal Court.
Sergio Moro · March 29, 2016 · Order · Official letter from the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba to the Supreme Federal Court (STF)
Context, original and sources →Não havia reparado antes no ponto, mas não vejo maior relevância.
Portal translation: I had not noticed the point before, but I do not see greater relevance.
Sergio Moro · March 2016 · Order · Decision of the 13th Federal Court of Curitiba (request to break confidentiality 5006205-98.2016.4.04.7000/PR), transcribed in Rcl 23.457
Context, original and sources →está juridicamente comprometida, não só em razão da usurpação de competência, mas também, de maneira ainda mais clara, pelo levantamento de sigilo das conversações telefônicas interceptadas
Portal translation: is legally compromised, not only because of the usurpation of jurisdiction, but also, even more clearly, because of the lifting of secrecy over the intercepted telephone conversations
Teori Zavascki · June 13, 2016 · Sentence · Supreme Federal Court (STF) — Complaint (Reclamação) 23.457/PR
Context, original and sources →Foi também precoce e, pelo menos parcialmente, equivocada a decisão que adiantou juízo de validade das interceptações, colhidas, em parte importante, sem abrigo judicial, quando já havia determinação de interrupção das escutas.
Portal translation: The decision that advanced a judgment on the validity of the interceptions was also premature and, at least partially, mistaken, since they were collected, in important part, without judicial cover, when there was already an order to stop the wiretaps.
Teori Zavascki · June 13, 2016 · Sentence · Supreme Federal Court (STF) — Complaint (Reclamação) 23.457/PR
Context, original and sources →Complaint 23.457, filed by the President of the Republic through the AGU, alleged usurpation of the STF's jurisdiction because, in the interception authorized by the 13th Court against Lula, conversations with the President of the Republic (an authority with special forum) were captured and the decision to release them at first instance would be flawed by absolute lack of jurisdiction.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · pp. 1-2 · open original ↗
Court decision (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Limitations: Allegation by the complainant, transcribed in Teori Zavascki's decision.
The preliminary injunction was granted on March 22, 2016 and endorsed by the Plenary on March 31, 2016, ordering the suspension and the referral to the STF of the request to break secrecy 5006205-98.2016.4.04.7000/PR and other proceedings.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · p. 3 · open original ↗
Court decision (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Teori Zavascki's decision transcribes the review made by the Curitiba court itself: the interruption of the interception was ordered on March 16, 2016, at 11:12:22, and, between the decision and its implementation with the carriers, a new dialogue was captured at 13:32, filed by the police authority.
Excerpt: “o diálogo [...] foi interceptado após este Juízo ter determinado o encerramento das interceptações, mas antes da efetivação da medida pelas operadoras”
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · pp. 16-17, item 10 · open original ↗
Court decision (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
The Prosecutor General of the Republic gave an opinion that the complaint should be dismissed in full, finding that, even if the lifting of secrecy at first instance had been improper, this would not amount to usurpation of the STF's jurisdiction.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · p. 4 · open original ↗
Court decision (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
The decision records, in reproducing a ground of the preliminary injunction, that no judgment was being made in advance on the legitimacy of the interception itself, but that the immediate public release of the conversations was being criticized.
Excerpt: “O que se infirma é a divulgação pública das conversas interceptadas da forma como ocorreu, imediata”
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · p. 16 · open original ↗
Court decision (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
On June 13, 2016, Teori Zavascki granted Rcl 23.457 in part: he recognized the violation of the STF's jurisdiction and set aside the 13th Court's decisions of March 16, 2016 (event 135) and March 17, 2016 (event 140) that lifted secrecy over the conversations; he recognized the nullity of the content of the conversations captured after the order to stop the interceptions; and ordered returned to the 13th Court the cases that did not involve authorities with special forum.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · pp. 20-22, item 15 · open original ↗
Court decision (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
The STF news item of June 13, 2016 reports that Teori ordered the cases in which Lula is under investigation sent to the first-instance court, set aside the decisions of March 16 and March 17, 2016 and annulled the content of the conversations recorded after the order to stop.
Source: STF envia investigações contra Lula para primeira instância — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · body of the news item · open original ↗
Release (primary) · excerpt examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
In an official letter to the STF, sent on March 29, 2016 at the request of Teori Zavascki, Moro asked the Court for 'respectful apologies' for the decision of March 16, 2016 and stated that it was not his intention to cause such effects.
Excerpt: “solicito desde logo respeitosas escusas a este Egrégio Supremo Tribunal Federal.”
Source: Moro pede desculpas ao STF e diz que liberação de grampos não teve cunho político — Migalhas, Mar. 29, 2016 · excerpts of the letter reproduced · open original ↗
News report · excerpt examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Limitations: The outlets diverge on one pronoun in the second sentence ('desse julgador' / 'deste julgador'); for that reason only the sentence asking for apologies was recorded as a verbatim statement.
In the same letter, Moro maintained that the interception had just cause and legal support and that the court's usual practice was to lift secrecy over telephone interceptions.
Excerpt: “a praxe deste Juízo sempre foi o de levantar o sigilo sobre processos de interceptação telefônica”
Source: Moro pede desculpas ao STF e diz que liberação de grampos não teve cunho político — Migalhas, Mar. 29, 2016 · excerpts of the letter reproduced · open original ↗
News report · excerpt examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
In reviewing his order, cited in Teori's decision, Moro wrote that he had not previously noticed the point of the 13:32 dialogue and did not see greater relevance in it, maintaining what he had decided.
Source: Reclamação 23.457/PR — decisão do Min. Teori Zavascki (13/06/2016) — Supreme Federal Court, June 13, 2016 · pp. 16-17, item 10 · open original ↗
Court decision (primary) · full text examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Limitations: The passage is transcribed within Teori's decision and refers to the order reviewing 'event 135'; the exact date of the review order does not appear in the excerpt read.
The TRF-4 Special Court closed, by 13 votes to 1, on September 22, 2016, the complaint by a group of 19 lawyers (according to Conjur) against Moro over the release of the conversation between Dilma and Lula; the rapporteur, Rômulo Pizzolatti, found Lava Jato to be an 'unprecedented' case in Brazilian law and saw no sign of a disciplinary violation; Rogério Favreto dissented.
Source: Lava jato não precisa seguir regras de casos comuns, diz TRF-4 — Consultor Jurídico, Sept. 23, 2016 · body of the article · open original ↗
News report · excerpt examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Conjur reports that Teori described Moro's earlier decision as premature and at least partly mistaken, and ordered the cases on the Atibaia ranch and the Guarujá apartment sent to the first-instance court; he denied requests from attorney Roberto Teixeira.
Source: Teori descarta grampos de Lula como prova e envia caso a Moro — Consultor Jurídico, June 13, 2016 · body of the article · open original ↗
News report · excerpt examined · accessed on Oct. 24, 2026
Identifier: ep:interceptacao-lula-dilma-2016
