## Facts

- The São Paulo Public Ministry (plaintiff) filed a public civil action against the Notre Dame Association for Education and Culture (defendant), a private educational institution in São Paulo.
- The Public Ministry acted on behalf of parents, students, and other affected persons, alleging that Notre Dame raised tuition beyond limits set by the State Education Council.
- Notre Dame argued the Public Ministry lacked standing to litigate what Notre Dame characterized as private, individual disputes between the school and families.
- The trial court rejected the standing objection and ordered Notre Dame to remain within the state-established tuition limits.
- Notre Dame appealed, and the São Paulo appellate court reversed, holding the Public Ministry lacked standing to sue on behalf of parents, students, and third parties in this type of tuition controversy.
- The Public Ministry filed an extraordinary appeal (RE 163.231/SP) to the Supreme Federal Court (STF), arguing that the Constitution authorizes the Public Ministry to bring a public civil action to protect diffuse, collective, and homogeneous individual rights arising from a common source, including consumer-related claims tied to education.

## Issues

1. Whether the São Paulo Public Ministry has standing under the Federal Constitution to bring a public civil action against a private school challenging allegedly illegal or abusive tuition increases imposed on a class of parents and students.
2. Whether claims involving school tuition limits may be treated as diffuse/collective or homogeneous individual rights of common origin, rather than only individualized contract claims requiring separate suits by each family.

## Decision

- The STF granted the extraordinary appeal (recurso extraordinário conhecido e provido) and reversed the appellate court’s denial of standing.
- The STF held the Public Ministry has standing to bring a public civil action to contest illegal or abusive school tuition charges when the challenged conduct affects a group or class of families and students.
- The STF characterized the asserted rights as homogeneous individual rights of common origin, treated in this context as a type of collective right that may be litigated through a public civil action.
- The STF relied on the Constitution’s description of the Public Ministry as a permanent institution essential to the judicial function (CF art. 127) and on its authority to bring public civil actions to defend diffuse and collective interests (CF art. 129, I and III).
- The STF also noted the constitutional status of education (CF art. 205) as supporting judicial protection of the class-based interests at stake.

## Legal Principles

- The Public Ministry has constitutional authority to initiate public civil actions to defend diffuse and collective interests, and this authority extends beyond environmental or public patrimony matters to other group-based rights (CF arts. 127 and 129).
- Diffuse interests involve an indeterminate number of persons connected by common factual circumstances; collective interests involve determinable groups, categories, or classes connected by a basic legal relationship.
- Homogeneous individual rights are those with a common origin (as described in consumer law) and, when tied to group-based harm, may be pursued through collective litigation rather than only through separate individual lawsuits.
- Allegedly illegal or abusive private-school tuition charges affecting multiple families may be challenged in a public civil action brought by the Public Ministry because the claim targets a shared course of conduct applied to a class of consumers.
- Standing for the Public Ministry in such actions does not depend on individual mandates from each affected parent or student.

## Conclusion

The STF held that the São Paulo Public Ministry may bring a public civil action challenging allegedly illegal or abusive tuition increases imposed by a private school, treating the claims as homogeneous rights of common origin and therefore suitable for collective judicial enforcement under the Public Ministry’s constitutional powers.


São Paulo Public Ministry v. Notre Dame Association, Extraordinary Appeal 163.231-3 (São Paulo) RE-163231 (1997)