Brazil's STF Special Forum Differs from Legal Models in US and Europe

Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) is responsible for processing and judging its own ministers, a system that differs from the legal models used in the United States, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. In those countries, Supreme Court judges are generally subject to common justice in the event of a crime.

In the United States, criminal processes for Supreme Court magistrates typically proceed in a court of first instance. According to Richard Friedman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, criminal prosecution is separate from removal from office. A judge must undergo impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate to be removed. This was illustrated by the case of former Nevada federal judge Harry Claiborne, who was convicted in a federal court of first instance in 1984 for falsifying tax returns. He remained a judge and received his salary for two years until the Senate convicted him in an impeachment process in 1986.

In Germany, the Public Prosecutor's Office can investigate Supreme Court members without authorization from Parliament or the court. However, removal from office is restricted to specific cases, such as a final criminal conviction for dishonorable conduct or a sentence of more than six months in prison. In such instances, the process occurs within the court, and removal requires a two thirds vote of the judges.

In the United Kingdom, judges have immunity for acts performed in their judicial capacity, but they are subject to the law like any other citizen for general criminal matters. Removal from office occurs exclusively through a parliamentary process. If both the House of Commons and the House of Lords vote for removal based on a breach of good conduct, the monarch removes the judge.

France also lacks a general rule for a special criminal forum for magistrates equivalent to the one existing in Brazil, including for judges of the Court of Cassation.